Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:

I thank you sincerely for your Address and for your loyal and affectionate greetings on My return from My tour in the course of which I and My Husband have visited many parts of the Commonwealth, including several of My Colonies and countries under My protection.

It has been a great joy to Me during the past six months to be able to meet so many of My Peoples and I and My Husband will always remember the lively and inspiring welcome which we have everywhere received.

I have been greatly moved by the warmth with which My Husband and 1 and our children have been welcomed on our return.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Saltfleet Bombing Range (Re-opening)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the results of the experiments at Saltfleet bombing by radar; how far bombing in future will be made away from land as a result of this revolutionary practice; and what future use he intends to make of the Saltfleet range.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): My hon. Friend will recall that this range was closed on 1st December, 1953, after several irregular

releases during high-level bombing practice. I am now satisfied, as a result of recent experiments in radar-plotting, that this type of bombing can in future be carried out efficiently three or four miles from the shore, so that there should be no risk of further incident. We therefore propose to re-open the range for all types of bombing practice as soon as the necessary equipment can be installed.

Mr. Osborne: Will the range be used a great deal, and can my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of my constituents that they will not be subject to the dangers that they suffered some six months ago?

Mr. Ward: A good deal will depend on the success with which we are able to achieve the introduction of this new method at other coastal ranges. I think it is unlikely that Saltfleet will be used less intensively than in the past, but I think that there is a very good chance indeed that we shall now completely overcome all these difficulties.

Mr. Osborne: If by mischance the new method does not prove successful, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to close down the range?

Mr. Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question.

United States Bases (Civilian Employees)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many British subjects offered civilian employment at United States bases in the United Kingdom have been interviewed by officials of his Department; and how many have been certified as unsuitable on security grounds.

Mr. Ward: I regret that this information is not available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not rather curious that hundreds of British subjects should be subjected to this examination by the hon. Gentleman's Department at the request of the American authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these applicants for employment are told at the Ministry of Labour exchange, or wherever they put in their applications, that they are going to be subjected to this examination before they are taken on?

Mr. Ward: About 4,700 civilians employed by the Air Ministry are working at United States Air Force bases in this country, and nearly all of them are engaged locally. There is no central record to show how many applicants for these jobs have been interviewed since the United States Air Force bases were opened in 1948. On the specific point of whether they are told, I am afraid that I shall have to check up, but I have no doubt that they are.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the situation is unsatisfactory and uncertain, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the applicants are told?

U.S. Manoeuvres (R.A.F. Observers)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many of the Royal Air Force officers who attended the United States "Flash Burn" manoeuvres have now returned to this country in order to give a first-hand eyewitness account of the lessons learnt.

Mr. Ward: Two, Sir.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Has a programme of lectures been arranged for these officers to give to other Service officers so that the lessons may be promptly learnt?

Mr. Ward: These two officers will be reporting in the first place to the Commander-in-Chief Transport Command, to the School of Land/Air Warfare and to the Air Ministry. We shall study their reports very carefully and then they will be disseminated throughout the Service in the best possible way. There are various channels for doing so. There is a magazine, "Air Clues," which has a wide circulation, and we may also issue a special pamphlet. Then, on the medical side of the matter, there will be an article in the Quarterly Report of the Director-General of Medical Services.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my hon. Friend not overlook the value of a firsthand eye-witness account if the lecturer can give it properly?

Mr. Ward: Yes, I shall bear that in mind. Of course, the information which these officers will bring back is mainly of interest to Transport Command and

to the School of Land Air Warfare, but I will certainly look into the point that my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned.

Haverigg Aerodrome

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Under secretary of State for Air the tender price for the repair and renovation of the Haverigg Aerodrome, the amount assessed for labour costs, the amount assessed for materials, the gross amount paid for the work when it was completed, when the aerodrome will be closed down, and how far the aerodrome buildings will be at the service of any other Department, respectively.

Mr. Ward: It would be contrary to well-established Government practice to disclose tender prices. The gross amount paid for the work was £317,000 and no separate assessment was made for labour and materials. The station will be closed down at the end of this month, and if we still have no further use for it, in about three months' time we shall offer it to other Government Departments for public letting.

Mr. Anderson: May I ask why offers have not already been made to the respective Departments, seeing that it has now been definitely decided to close down this aerodrome, rather than to keep it on a care and maintenance basis for a matter of three months? Why have offers not been made to the Ministry of Education, the Cumberland Education Authority or other authorities dealing with mental cases and so on?

Mr. Ward: Only because we want to be absolutely certain by a thorough review of all our commitments that we do not have any further use for it. We shall be certain one way or the other in about three months' time, and then we shall take action.

Mr. Anderson: Will offers be made to other Departments even at the expiry of the three months?

Mr. Ward: Yes. I said in my answer that we were going to offer it to other Government Departments if we did not want it ourselves.

Disused Sites, Orkney

Mr. Grimond: asked the Under-secretary of State for Air the value of equipment and buildings in Orkney still


held by the Air Ministry but unused; and what is the estimated loss on such buildings and equipment by deterioration since the end of the war.

Mr. Ward: I regret that this information is not readily available. I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

Mr. Grimond: While I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering to make inquiries, I find it rather alarming that there is a necessity for this. Is there no regular system of inspection and accounting of Air Ministry property wherever it is?

Mr. Ward: There is no point in regular detailed inspections of disused sites, and in order to get the value which the hon. Member wants it would be necessary to make a special inspection.

Northolt Airport (Use)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air, in view of the fact that a definite date has now been given when civil flying will cease at Northolt Airport, if he can now state the nature and extent of the flying which will be done by the Royal Air Force from Northolt; and whether the United States Air Force also propose to extend their use of this airport.

Mr. Ward: When civil flying from Northolt comes to an end in October, the airfield will continue to be used by transport and communication aircraft of the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force. The total amount of flying from the airfield will, however, be considerably reduced.

Mr. Beswick: While we hope that the total amount will be reduced, can the Minister give an undertaking that the amount of military flying will not be increased above that done at the moment, and having agreed to give up this airport largely on safety grounds because of its proximity to London Airport, does he not agree that it would be wholly wrong now to develop it for military flying?

Mr. Ward: I cannot give an undertaking that the amount of military flying which we shall do will be no greater than we do now. Of course, we are naturally very restricted at the moment by the

amount of flying we can do by the operation of civil aircraft there, but the total amount of flying will be certainly reduced as compared with what goes on now, both civil and military. As I said, we have been working out details of the flying we are going to do there, but, of course, it will be limited—it is bound to be limited—by the need to avoid interference with aircraft using London Airport.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will its use by the United States Air Force be confined to transport planes in the same way as Transport Command is using it?

Mr. Ward: It will be certainly confined to communications and transport aircraft, but as to how many aircraft we shall have there, I should not like to say.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman resist any development of the airport by the American Air Force, because it would be creating considerable difficulties in the area both in respect of accommodation and air safety?

Mr. Ward: I can certainly give the assurance that we shall not expand our activities on that airfield beyond the point at which we should be a danger to London Airport, or at which there would have to be new accommodation.

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many helicopters and what type are in service with the Royal Air Force; and what orders have been placed to increase the helicopter strength.

Mr. Ward: There are some 20 helicopters in service in the Royal Air Force. These are of two types—Dragonflies and Sycamores. Outstanding orders amount to 100, of which about half should be delivered in the next 12 months.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman feel satisfied with these figures, and would he and his Department try to have some of the enthusiasm of the Navy which has led the way in the exploitation of this aeronautical development?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. We are as keen as the hon. Member to get helicopters. As I said, we have 100 on order, and I think that there should be substantial improvement in deliveries over the next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Built-up Areas (Speed Limits)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce a speed limit of 25 miles per hour in a selected town for an experimental period.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): While I appreciate the motives underlying my hon. Friend's suggestion, I do not think that it would serve a useful purpose. A maximum speed of 30 miles per hour has been accepted for many years as reasonable in built-up areas, and pedestrians as well as motorists are accustomed to it.

Mr. Page: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Minister is prepared to carry out any experiments with a view to reviewing the present speed limits?

Mr. Molson: I do not think that there is any need for that. As recently as 1949, the Ministry of Transport asked the Committee on Road Safety to make a report on this matter. The Committee included representatives of the Police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and also the Pedestrians' Association, of which my hon. Friend is the chairman. It expressed the view that the existing 30 miles per hour limit was reasonable and accepted as such by the public.

Mr. Rankin: Surely if the motorist has become accustomed to a speed limit of 30 miles per hour there is no reason why he cannot become accustomed for an experimental period to a speed limit of 25 miles per hour?

Mr. Molson: For no fewer than 27 years 20 miles per hour was the maximum speed limit, and it was found to be unsatisfactory and was abolished in 1930.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that many towns are now concerned about the speed limit which is in existence, and is it not a fact that since the time he mentioned there has been an increasing number of accidents—and the faster they go the more accidents there are? Is there not a case for the reduction of the speed limit in the towns?

Mr. Molson: The majority of accidents in this country are in those areas where there is a speed limit.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation from which sections of the main Bristol road, within the boundaries of the city of Birmingham, he is considering removal of the 30 miles per hour speed limit; and when his decision can be expected.

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has asked the Birmingham City Council to de-restrict the section of Bristol Road South which lies between Weoley Park Road, Selly Oak, and St. Lawrence Road, Northfield, and is awaiting the council's reply.

Mr. Chapman: When the Minister decides to de-restrict this area, will he hold a meeting locally so that full objections to his scheme can be properly heard?

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has made a request to the Birmingham City Council, and to deal with what might happen if they decline to agree to what he proposes would be to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will list the causes of the 59 road accidents which occurred in the past three years on the section of Bristol Road South, Birmingham, between the Austin Motor Works and Rubery.

Mr. Molson: As the answer involves tabulated figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that his figures relate to the three years ending December, 1952, and that the more recent figures to 30th April this year indicate that over a three years' period the figures have gone up by at least 25 per cent.? Will he, therefore, now revise or review his decision not to impose a 30 miles an hour speed limit? The chief constable of Birmingham states in a letter to me that he is in favour of such a speed limit. Why is the opinion of this chief official of the city disregarded?

Mr. Molson: I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of accidents since the figures I gave last week. I have, however, had some census figures on the road prepared, and it appears that the average number of accidents a year per thousand vehicles


per day per mile on this stretch of road was only 1½ injury accidents as compared with an average for the whole country in similar circumstances of seven or eight. There is, therefore, no justification for introducing a speed limit.

Following are the figures:

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Bristol Road South (A.38)

Road Accidents between Lickey Road (Austin Motor Works) and City Boundary (Rubery)

The prime causes of the road accidents on the above stretch of road, as determined by the Police, between 1st January, 1950, and 31st December, 1952, are as follows:

Drivers or Pedal Cyclists:



Inattentive or attention diverted
10


Misjudging distance, clearance or speed (vehicles or objects)
5


Turning right without due care
5


Pulling out from near side without due care
4


Turning to left without due care
1


Stopping suddenly
3


Swerving
3


Skidding
3


Proceeding at excessive speed having regard to conditions
3


Reversing negligently
2


Losing control
1


Pedestrians:



Heedless of traffic—crossing road not masked by stationary vehicle
3


Heedless of traffic—stepping, walking or running off footpath or verge
3


Heedless of traffic—crossing road masked by stationary vehicle
2


Heedless of traffic—playing in road
2


Heedless of traffic—walking or standing in road
1


Slipping or falling
1


Passengers, etc.:



Negligence on part of conductor
1


Weather:



Ice, frost or snow
2


Fog or mist
1


Cause not traced
3



59

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent an area has to be built up, and how far the total of road accidents is taken into account before he imposes a 30 miles per hour speed limit on an urban road in a development area.

Mr. Molson: Each case is decided on the relevant facts. As was recognised by the Committee on Road Safety in their report on speed limits, published in 1949,

no precise formulae can be applied generally.

Mr. Chapman: The Minister knows that I am pressing him about this stretch of road. How far has the toll of life to go before we can get action?

Mr. Molson: The toll of life at present is so heavy that we are taking all steps that we can to reduce it. It is for this reason that the Government resisted the Prayer that was moved last night to annul the Regulations dealing with pedestrian crossings. We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a speed limit restriction in areas where it is not likely to be observed by motorists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date work will recommence on the Dart-ford—Purfleet Tunnel.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): As the hon. Member knows, it is proposed to recommence work on this tunnel next year. I cannot at present be more precise than this as to dates.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that information has been given now for months? Can he not give some idea whether the work will be recommenced at the beginning or the end of the year? In view of the fact that many other districts want tunnels and are well behind in the queue, has a decision not yet been reached?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The fact that information was given some months ago does not make it less true today. This is an immensely expensive project—I think, the largest on our list of undertakings—and I am very glad it has been brought so far forward. This conflicts very vividly with the policy of the previous Administration.

Mr. Rankin: While I support my hon. Friend entirely, did not the Minister state in the House in December that the Clyde Tunnel had first priority?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, but this project is even more expensive than the Clyde Tunnel.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now say how many shields will be required for the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel.

Mr. Molson: This is being considered by the Dartford Tunnel Committee, whose views we are awaiting.

Mr. Rankin: Surely this matter has been now under consideration for a very long time? Has the Minister been doing anything to speed up a decision from Dartford, in view of the fact that he has just intimated that the Dartford Tunnel will be resumed next year? Further, is there any reason why, when Glasgow has been assigned first priority, he should have to wait any decision from Dartford at all?

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend always feels great hesitation about trying to hasten local authorities in these matters. We are awaiting detailed estimates from the Glasgow Corporation as well as from the Dartford Tunnel Committee, and therefore my right hon. Friend is in the position of being obliged to wait for the initiative to be taken locally.

High Wycombe

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) when he proposes to authorise the construction of the High Wycombe inner relief road;
(2) when he proposes to authorise the construction of the High Wycombe and West Wycombe by-pass between Loud-water and Stokenchurch on the A.40 road.

Mr. Molson: Early in June my right hon. Friend will publish a draft Order under the Trunk Roads Act for the inner relief road, and the project for the outer by-pass is under survey. I regret that I cannot say when it will be possible to fit either of these schemes into the road programme.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the considerable traffic congestion in High Wycombe is a source of grave inconvenience and loss to industry and causes considerable anxiety to the police in the area? Is he further aware that the seven miles' stretch of 30 miles an hour limit through the High Wycombe

and Wycombe Valley slows down traffic on this important road to such an extent that it must cause considerable loss to industry? Cannot my hon. Friend bring this project forward?

Mr. Molson: We realise that there is great need of this road in High Wycombe, but the same applies to roads in many other parts of the country. It is unlikely that we could include this scheme in the road programme in the first few years.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this road is the main trunk road between London and South Wales and that South Wales is already very badly served with roads? Will he look into the matter with a view to its importance far beyond the implications of High Wycombe alone?

Mr. Molson: It is because the Government realised that Wales was badly served for roads that such a large proportion of the programme announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th December dealt with Wales.

Accidents, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the county council of Leicester is concerned that certain places in the city and county of Leicester have such high accident records that improvements to reduce them are urgent; and what steps he will take to make speedy improvements to these places, a list of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West.

Mr. Molson: I received the hon. Member's letter on Monday, and I am looking into the matter and will write to him.

Mr. Janner: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to keep in mind what he said a moment or two ago, that in cases where the initiative is taken by the locality he is prepared to deal with the matter, and will he see to it that these real danger spots, about which the Leicester and County Accident Prevention Council also communicated with his Department, are dealt with speedily, as a considerable number of accidents are taking place?

Mr. Molson: We will gladly look into the matter, but 48 hours is not really sufficient time in which to do it.

TRANSPORT

Traffic Signals (Right Turns)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation to make it a specific offence to turn a motor vehicle or a pedal cycle to the right on a public highway without giving an appropriate signal, either physically or by indicator-arm or by light, before doing so.

Mr. Molson: I am not satisfied that my hon. Friend's proposal is the best way of dealing with this matter; the new draft Highway Code says: "If you intend to turn right, signal in good time and take up a position just left of the middle of the road," and if this advice were universally followed we should see a substantial reduction in road accidents.

Trolleybuses, London (Replacement)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reduction is brought about in total passenger carrying capacity by the decision to substitute diesel oil vehicles for electric trolleybuses in London.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that the passenger-carrying capacity of the new vehicles would be similar whether they were powered by oil or by electricity.

Mr. Palmer: In view of the fact that it is a matter of ordinary calculation—remembering that a trolleybus carries 70 passengers and a diesel bus 64 passengers —that 200 extra vehicles would be required to give the same passenger-carrying capacity, and not the 30 which the right hon. Gentleman announced, is it not evident that the London public will have a reduced service, and would the Minister take action to restrain the London Transport Executive in their bias against this useful electrical vehicle?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That might be so if the calculations of the hon. Gentleman were correct, but London Transport are proposing—and were proposing anyhow—to replace the existing trolley vehicles—the 70 seater 3-axle trolleybuses—with 2-axle vehicles of about the same seating capacity, and that makes my answer and theirs absolutely correct.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that there will be considerable economy as the result of this substitution, and is not that the overriding factor for it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is so.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is it not a fact that the new buses proposed by London Transport can be loaded and unloaded quicker than trolleybuses owing to their design?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think so, and examination of all the facts suggests that this should lead to a speeding up and a smoother flowing of London traffic.

CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if consideration will now be given to reviewing the regulations governing helicopters in the air, with a view to reducing the stringency of the regulations as an incentive to develop and use this type of transport in this country.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The regulations governing helicopters, in common with all safety regulations, are constantly under review. I cannot agree that they are unnecessarily stringent at this stage of helicopter development or a disincentive to the use of the helicopter as a form of transport.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that people who are concerned with the manufacture of helicopters tell me that this should be discussed, particularly as the national Press has given details in the last day of a helicopter which has been made but which is not allowed to be flown until another one is built and supervised from first to last? Does he not think that it is time there should be another discussion on this point, because helicopters are much safer now than ever they were when the present regulations were introduced?

Mr. Profumo: I have said that these regulations have been under review. I should add that my right hon. Friend is reinforced in his view about these Regulations, first, by the advice of the Air


Safety Board and secondly, by the manufacturers themselves who agree—and I have spoken to them in person—that they are reasonable and necessary during the present development stage when only single-engined helicopters are available.

Mr. William Paling: Is the Minister aware that this question of helicopters has been discussed in this House for years? Can he now say when we are likely to develop a twin-engined helicopter?

Mr. Profumo: I think that is another question. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that every haste is being made to see that the twin-engined helicopter is brought in as speedily as possible.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the difficulty not the regulations of the Department, but the dilatoriness of manufacturers in producing the necessary machines?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept that statement, although I think that the hon. Gentleman wants to be helpful. That is not the case. The manufacturers are pressing ahead with all possible speed. The fact remains, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well himself, that we cannot develop any sort of aeroplane until we have had a chance of flying it for a sufficient time during the testing period, and that is being done with every possible speed.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Central Post Office in Chicago has had 40,000 landings and take-offs on a roof approximately 240 feet from the street and not one single mishap in those 40,000 landings and take-offs with a single-engined helicopter?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot be concerned with what happens in other countries.

Mr. Snow: You should be.

Mr. Profumo: I am speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, and that is what I am responsible for. It is not my right hon. Friend's policy or practice to prevent flights by helicopter into the Central London area, providing the flights are routed in such a manner that in the event of engine failure landings can be made without risk to persons on the ground. This, surely, cannot be regarded as a stringent regulation. To relax this precaution would be to endanger the public.

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many applications he has received and granted to run regular passenger transport ser vices in the United Kingdom by helicopter; and when the first service is expected to start.

Mr. Profumo: I am informed that the Air Transport Advisory Council have recently received one application from an independent company for permission to run regular helicopter services which, in the initial years, would be confined to the carriage of freight, but developed later as passenger services. I understand that B.E.A.C, as part of their helicopter development programme, also intend to apply shortly to the A.T.A.C. for authority to introduce an experimental scheduled passenger service on a new route this summer.

Mr. Holt: Have the applications been granted?

Mr. Profumo: The applications are being submitted to the Air Transport Advisory Council.

Mr. Ernest Davies: For which routes have applications been made?

Mr. Profumo: Until the applications are advertised in the normal way by the Air Transport Advisory Council, it would be inappropriate for me to reveal any of the details.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what restrictions prevent or impede the purchase of suitable helicopters from overseas for regular passenger transport services in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Profumo: If a helicopter is developed in an overseas country suitable for regular passenger transport services in the United Kingdom, there would be no restrictions preventing or impeding its purchase other than normal import licensing and currency regulations existing at that time.

Mr. Holt: What are those import licensing regulations?

Mr. Profumo: They are a question for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the experimental service


between Birmingham and London was withdrawn last year, an undertaking was given by British European Airways that they would revive a similar service of an experimental character between other main provincial centres? As since that date we have heard no more of this, can my hon. Friend give any information?

Mr. Profumo: The only information I can give is that that has nothing to do with the importation of foreign aircraft.

Far East Routes (Jewish Passengers)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the British Overseas Airways Corporation have issued instructions which put difficulty in the way of Jews of British or other nationality desiring to travel to Iraq or to the Far East on a route which stops in Bagdad in transit; and if he will consult with the Corporation with a view to giving a direction under Section 5 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, to ensure that such discrimination is not permitted in future.

Mr. Profumo: The Corporation's instructions to their staff are due to an Iraqi regulation of 1950 and have been in existence ever since.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this is an extremely serious matter, that it is a shocking case of discrimination, and will he do something about remedying the position? Does he accept the position where the Iraqi Government is insisting upon British nationals not being allowed to travel on B.O.A.C. aero-planes?

Mr. Profumo: So far as I am aware the Iraqi Government regulations require that members of the Jewish faith must have special visas when passing through Iraq. If they have the visas, B.O.A.C. will gladly carry them. These instructions were issued entirely in the interests of the Jewish passengers and to avoid embarrassment and inconvenience.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the considered policy and has been since 1950, as he says, to refuse any visa to any Jew in whatever kind of aeroplane he crosses their territory, and does not the refusal of our Government to take any steps in

the matter mean connivance in discrimination against British subjects travelling in British aeroplanes?

Mr. Profumo: I can only answer the Question that is put on the Paper, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these regulations have been made in the interests of the Jewish passengers. I have no reason to suspect that any British Jew has so far been stopped in transit. Nothing of the sort has been brought to my notice, but the facts concerning this problem go far wider than my own responsibility.

Mr. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether this also applies to the staff of B.O.A.C. who might be flying that way? Can he assure us that in no circumstances will Jews be forbidden to join B.O.A.C. because they might have to work in that area?

Mr. Profumo: These regulations apply to any member of the Jewish faith, but I must point out that there are two other ways whereby members of the Jewish faith may reach Far Eastern destinations. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no discrimination in employing members of the Jewish faith in the B.O.A.C. organisation because of this.

Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

RAILWAYS

Pullman Car Company

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to discontinue their negotiations for the acquisition of the Pullman Car Company.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission not to purchase the Pullman Car Company.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no power to give such a direction, which I could not regard as one of a general character and, even if I had, I should not think it appropriate in this case. The proposal is the result of negotiations freely


entered into between the British Transport Commission and the directors of the Pullman Car Company, on the initiative, I understand, of the latter. The directors have commended the proposal to their shareholders, and it is now awaiting the shareholders' decisions. The main reason which has weighed with the Commission in making their offer to acquire the company is that they consider that this is the best way of ensuring the continuance of the Pullman car service on a sound long-term basis.

Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that statement and recognising that he has no statutory power in this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that the overwhelming majority of the general public will deplore the disappearance of the last vestige of private enterprise on the railways, and that we shall no longer anywhere be able to get a decent meal on long-distance trains?

Mr. Dalton: Is the Minister aware that the overwhelming majority of the general public do not travel by Pullman?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In answer to both of these questions, this is now before the shareholders of the Pullman Car Company, the overwhelming majority of whom will now be called upon to make a decision.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Pullman Car Company during the whole period of the nationalisation of the railways before this Government took over was having considerable trouble, under considerable pressure, in carrying on its particular work, and am I to understand that my right hon. Friend, after all that was said during the General Election, has no power whatever to do anything to stop this ordinary private enterprise company being taken over? May I further add that the people in my constituency, to which most of these Pullman cars go, including the "Brighton Belle," will be horrified at this happening, because they do not wish to see nationalised railways taking over something that up to now has been so efficiently run?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. It is, of course, a fact, as is stated in the

circular put out by the Pullman Car Company directors to their shareholders, that there are insuperable difficulties at the present time and in the foreseeable future for both parties to arrive at a worth-while solution. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House seriously expects that the powers given to the Minister under the 1947 Act should be used in this way to interfere with the Commission's freedom to make commercial transactions freely entered into by both parties. If it is a fact that my hon. Friend's constituents fear that they will be prejudiced in this matter, I hope the advantages of the Pullman service, which are undeniable and which the Commission will continue in their present form, will be extended to other districts as well as to Brighton.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that the company has said that it could not carry on in view of the very large capital expenditure which will be necessary to re-equip these Pullman cars, and is that not the reason why it is being taken over?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not being taken over. The question is now before the shareholders, who have to consider a freely negotiated offer. It is for them to consider the matter, but clearly the immense cost of re-equipping a fleet, which is getting old in parts and the franchise of which expires in 1962, must be ever present to the directors and the shareholders.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the quite unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter as the subject of my Adjournment debate tomorrow week.

Level Crossing Keepers

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to alter their present policy of dismissing level-crossing keepers and placing the responsibility of opening and closing gates on the engine fireman, in view of the unemployment caused and the fact that no economy is effected, since the extra consumption of fuel involved in stopping and starting trains outweighs the saving in wages.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. This is a matter for the British Transport Commission. The cost of the slight increase in fuel consumption resulting from the stopping and starting of the locomotive is much less than the wages that would have to be paid if crossing keepers were employed.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that on one branch line alone from MacDuff to Inveramsay all three level-crossing keepers have been dismissed at a loss to British Railways of £1,965 12s. a year in order to save £450, that that is false economy, and will he now restore the three level-crossing keepers, who are on the spot waiting to resume their duties, and so save the nation money?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I took any such step the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to point out that I would be acting unconstitutionally. I think that this is a matter which can be safely left to the commercial discretion of the Commission, which, in this and in other more important fields, is attempting to make the railways self-supporting.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The Minister has overlooked the fact that I merely asked him to give a direction to British Railways. I did not ask him to do anything unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has answered that.

SHIPPING

Oil Pollution Convention

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the results of the International Conference on the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil; and when it is anticipated that the agreed Convention will come into force.

Sir H. Roper: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement about the results of the recent International Conference on the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Conference prepared a Convention providing for the establishment of zones within which certain oils should not be discharged. The Convention will come into force 12 months

after acceptance by 10 Governments, including five with not less than 500,000 gross tons of tanker tonnage. A further Conference will be held within three years to consider the question of the complete avoidance of the discharge of certain oils anywhere at sea.
The texts of the Convention and the resolutions adopted by the Conference will be laid before the House as soon as possible. Her Majesty's Government will consider urgently formal acceptance of the Convention and the introduction of the necessary legislation. It will be some years before the effects of this Conference are fully apparent, but the adoption of the Convention will undoubtedly lead to considerable lessening of the evil of oil pollution of our coasts and waters.

Mr. Robinson: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the success of this Conference, may I ask him whether he can say if Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Convention?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot at this moment add to what I have said, but I think I made it plain that we clearly envisage that legislation will be necessary after ratification.

Sir H. Roper: I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, not only because of the success of the Conference, but because of the energy he has devoted to this matter from the start. Might I ask him whether any country has yet signed the Convention, and whether there was any discussion at the Conference about the use of oil separators or any question of that policy being universally adopted by the countries concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the fuller statement I shall make in regard to the need for 10 Governments signing the Convention within 12 months before it can come into force. I think the Conference has been successful, but clearly I would have liked it to result in a total prohibition. I think more education is necessary in this important field before we can reach that happy solution.

Missing Engineer (Disposal of Property)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now authorise the payment of


wages and transfer of the effects of Mr. T. G. Thorpe, late second engineer of s.s. "Teespool," who has been missing from the vessel since December, 1953.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no proof that Mr. Thorpe is dead. Unless I have this, I cannot authorise disposal of his property. In accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it is for Mrs. Thorpe or her legal representative to produce Probate or Letters of Administration.

Mr. Shinwell: What period must elapse in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman before death has been presumed, and -is the right hon. Gentleman aware that evidence has been produced to the effect that Mr. Thorpe was on the vessel when she sailed and presumably, if that is so, he must have disappeared when on the vessel? Will the Minister recognise that Mrs. Thorpe, who is now suffering inconvenience if not hardship, is finding difficulty in meeting the demands on her?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have every sympathy in this and similar cases, and would gladly help, but the question of how death can be proved, or how quickly it can be assumed after disappearance, is a matter for the courts, and under the Act I cannot interfere. I hope that those concerned will read my answer and will take the necessary steps consequent upon that.

s.s. "Sheldrake" (Arrested Seamen)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement regarding the recent arrest of the crew of the Liverpool ship, s.s. "Sheldrake," in Canada.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Reports from the Canadian authorities state that 18 deck and engine room ratings of the s.s. "Sheldrake" refused to carry out their duties on 7th May at Montreal. All efforts at a settlement failed and the men were duly charged with wilful disobedience to a lawful command and taken into custody on 8th May. After two adjournments the men were released on parole on 12th May for trial on 18th May, and were being cared for at the Sailors' Institute. Full reports and the

result of the proceedings have not yet been received, but I understand that the 18 seamen have been sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment.

Mr. Irvine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, I have received reports that this crew received unsatisfactory treatment whilst under arrest, and as one is aware that any such reports will cause concern to the Canadian authorities, will the Minister investigate that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look at that if the information is given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the circumstances were fully explained to the men before sailing, namely, that they would be subject to receiving British National Maritime Board wages. However, I will at once look into any suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes.

CHINA (DIPLOMATIC MISSION)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has ever received any reply to Her Majesty's Government's representations that this country and the People's Government of China should exchange diplomatic missions; and if he will state briefly the steps which Her Majesty's Government has taken to this end since according de facto recognition on 7th January, 1950.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 22nd February.

Mr. Donnelly: I am aware of that. Can I assume from that reply that it still remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to try to exchange diplomatic missions with China, and that if the Chinese Government now makes a move in this matter and suggests sending a diplomatic mission to this country, it would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Our attitude has been made clear many times by actions as well as by words. It is clearly not for


us to raise the matter. As to the second part of the question, I think we had better wait and see if it happens.

Mr. Donnelly: Surely the hon. Gentleman can go a good deal further than that? All I am asking him to say is that there is no change in the policy and that such a mission would be acceptable to the Government. Surely his brief will enable him to say that?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the policy is clearly stated in the reply of 22nd February.

Mr. Dalton: In view of the fact that we recognised the present Government in China some years ago, and that Her Majesty's present Government have continued recognition, surely they would welcome reciprocity in the form of the arrival of a Chinese Ambassador in London?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The next move is clearly not for us to make.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that this country has given full recognition to China and not merely de facto recognition?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the reply of my right hon. Friend of 22nd February, he will find that, as my right hon. Friend said, the situation is far from satisfactory as regards this country.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

SUEZ CANAL (INCIDENTS)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what attacks there have been on British Service personnel in the Suez Canal zone during the past six weeks.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The total number of attacks during the period 2nd April to 13th May was 52. As a result of these attacks one British Service man was killed and four seriously injured. The total also includes two attempts at abduction which were, however, prevented by the Egyptian police.

Mr. Shinwell: Are protests made? Is any action of any kind taken, or do the Government just sit down and wait to see what happens?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Not this Government. On 18th April Her Majesty's Government's Consul at Port Said protested strongly, and the Ambassador reminded the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs on 22nd April and again on 13th May that we expect the Egyptian Government to maintain law and order in the Canal Zone.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman ever recall in British history any Government which remained so quiescent and inactive as the present Government?

Hon. Members: What about Abadan?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I spent 6½ years watching the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

SAUDI ARABIAN OIL (SHIPPING AGREEMENT)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Saudi Arabian Government over their grant of a monopoly for the transport of oil in view of the discrimination against British interests; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) on 17th May, when he said that he understood that an agreement has been made, but the text has not yet been published. If it is confirmed that the agreement will result in discrimination against British shipping, we will certainly consider what steps can usefully be taken.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that since then there have been very good indications of the type of agreement that is being entered into, including a statement by the Saudi Arabian Minister in Cairo, and it is clearly discriminatory against British shipping? Will he take action to make sure that some effective protest is made before it is too late?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We cannot do that until we get the terms of the agreement, which we are doing our best to obtain.

SLAVERY (UNITED NATIONS REPORTS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further reports he has received from the United Nations in respect of slavery; and to what extent Her Majesty's Government are participating in measures to secure its elimination.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Two reports of the Secretary General were considered by the Economic and Social Council at its last session which ended on 30th April. One recorded the results of his consultation with Governments concerning the desirability of a Supplementary Convention to extend the application of the 1926 Convention on Slavery. The other provided a collation of recent information on slavery received from Governments, the Specialised Agencies and non-Governmental organisations. The United Kingdom delegation took the lead in the discussion at the Council Session and, as a result, a United Kingdom draft Supplementary Convention has been circulated to Governments and the International Labour Organisation for their comments. The draft and the comments will be considered by the Council at its 19th Session early next year.

Mr. Sorensen: Have any Governments refused to accept this Convention, Governments in whose territory it is suspected that slavery still continues?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I could not say definitely without notice, but as far as I know none have refused.

U.S.A. BUTTER

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether any decision has yet been reached about the purchase of surplus butter from the United States of America; what price is to be paid; and what dollar payment is involved.

Dr. Hill: The question whether butter could be supplied to the United Kingdom under Section 550 of the Mutual Security Act is being considered in consultation with the United States Government. I cannot yet forecast what prices would be paid if any business took place, but no

dollar payment would, in any case, be involved since goods obtained under the provisions of Section 550 of the Mutual Security Act are paid for in sterling, which would be applied in relief of the United Kingdom defence budget.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the question of the price at which this butter will be sold here? The position is extremely bad already and if he does not regulate the price this butter will only be available to those who can afford it and not to those who ought to have it.

Dr. Hill: I assure the hon. Member that in these discussions the point of the price is being carefully considered.

NIGERIA (EX-INDIAN GOVERNMENT SERVANTS)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-Indian Government servants have been taken into the employment of the Nigerian Government, either in the Civil Service or public corporations, respectively.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): Forty-seven ex-Indian Government servants, including six ex-members of the regular Indian Armed Services, are employed by the Nigerian Government. None is employed by any public corporation in Nigeria.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that numbers of ex-Indian civil servants have been appointed to senior posts on the Nigerian railways and it is alleged that many of them have not even the qualifications to be assistant locomotive superintendents? This is obviously causing dissatisfaction among English employees. Will he look into the matter, and can he give us more details?

Mr. Hopkinson: Twenty-seven out of the total of 47 are employed by the Nigerian railways, but this is the first complaint that I have heard about their qualifications.

Mr. Johnson: But will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Mr. Hopkinson: indicated assent.

KIKUYU, DAGORETI

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kikuyu men, women and children who were ordered to leave Dagoreti before midnight on Sunday, 25th April, have been sent into the Kikuyu Reserve; and what is the total number of Kikuyu who have been sent, or been obliged to go back to, the Kikuyu Reserve since November, 1953.

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. The reply to the second part of the Question is not readily available, but I am consulting the Acting Governor and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister assure the House that large numbers, or indeed any numbers, of Africans in Nairobi will not be sent back to the already congested Kikuyu Reserve? Will he also assure us that those who have been sent back are adequately looked after and catered for in respect of food, accommodation and the like?

Mr. Hopkinson: As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have already told the House in reply to a previous Question that such care, welfare and relief is being given in the Reserves As to the second part, my right hon. Friend duly took note of several questions asked by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and he has asked the Government of Kenya to furnish a report. They have promised to send one, but they cannot send one immediately.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As this is a very urgent matter, and as the information which we have is that the numbers of people sent back to the Reserves are leading to chronic overcrowding and all that follows from that, may I press for an early report? When presenting the report, will the Minister also consider whether some other method could not be adopted which would avoid the present distress?

Mr. Hopkinson: The Government of Kenya have promised to send a report as soon as possible and I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that we can deal with this problem only by measures to decrease the difficulties within the Reserves themselves.

COLONIAL BRITISH SUBJECTS (U.K. ENTRY)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that substantial numbers of people, mainly without adequate means of support, are arriving in Britain from abroad in search of work; that this is causing public concern; and what steps he is taking to deal humanely with this social problem and, in particular, to ensure that those who fail to find work are enabled to return home.

Mr. Hopkinson: I understand that some of those who arrive from Colonial Territories either go straight to jobs, or to friends and relatives. Most of them have some means of support. Officers of my Department, in consultation with other Government Departments, do their best to put the remainder in touch with organisations which can help them. Arrangements can usually be made for the repatriation of British subjects from the Colonies who are unlikely to be able to support themselves.

Mr. Erroll: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether territories which impose restrictions on British nationals should have their nationals subject to the same restrictions when they visit this country, so that these matters are dealt with on a reciprocal basis in the meantime?

Mr. Hopkinson: My hon. Friend is certainly aware of the old tradition that British subjects from any Colonial Territory can come freely to this country. To change from that would be to take a very drastic step, but I assure him that we are aware of the public concern that this matter is causing and that it is receiving very careful consideration.

Mr. J. Hynd: In view of the fact that many of these men are coming to London, Liverpool and other ports and then drifting throughout the country with no information as to where they are likely to find jobs, could not the Minister set up some sub-department to ensure that at these central points there will be co-ordination of information about jobs suitable for them, so as to enable them to be directed to appropriate places?

Mr. Hopkinson: This matter involves other Departments than the Colonial Office, but I assure the hon. Member that it is receiving the most careful attention.

MALAYA FEDERATION ELECTIONS

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received intimation of the decision of the Rulers of the Malaya Federation on the subject of federal elections; and if he will now make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the new constitutional arrangements for Malaya.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the proposed new constitution for Malaya with particular reference to the elected and nominated seats proposed.

Mr. Hopkinson: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) on 30th April.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that both the United Malay National Organisation and the Malaya Chinese Organisation have expressed dissatisfaction with the small elected majority which is afforded under the new Constitution? In view of that, will he consider assigning to the Alliance four out of the seven of the nominated seats, which I understand he proposes to hold in reserve?

Mr. Hopkinson: That is a separate question which should be placed separately on the Order Paper. The present arrangements, which are known to the House, are that the majority of elected members of six has been arrived at after very full consultation and lengthy discussions with all concerned, including the Rulers. My right hon. Friend thinks that no useful purpose will be served by upsetting the arrangement.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Surely my Question deals with elections which arise from the Constitution?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that both sides of the House have had opportunities of consultation with the delegations which recently visited this country from the two organisations which represent the two main communities, the Malaya to work the Constitution satis-utmost importance that we should keep the support and co-operation of these

communities since the future of Malaya depends on racial unity. Would it be possible, within the terms of the constitution now promulgated, for consideration to be given to these seven nominated members at the discretion of the High Commissioner being used in such a way as to go at any rate part of the way to meet their point that they should have an effective elected majority in Malaya and responsibility in the Government?

Mr. Hopkinson: I would not dissent in any way from what the right hon. Member has said about the necessity of getting the assent of all the people in Malaya to work the constitution satisfactorily. My right hon. Friend has seen this delegation and had a very friendly talk with them the other day. He is still in correspondence with them. The divergences of view are not, I think, so great as sometimes has been thought, and the field of disagreement is really very small. My right hon. Friend is writing a letter to them, which I think will be published in due course, but the obligation clearly is on them to consider it themselves. They have to refer it to their friends in the Federation, and I do not think it would be useful for me to pursue any further detailed points today at Question time.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether there is any chance of settling this point by the method I have suggested, or any other method?

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, one of these Questions was mine, but you did not call me and I was not allowed to say anything.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member was cut out by his own Front Bench.

LOCOMOTIVE DRIVERS AND FIREMEN (STRIKE)

Mr. Isaacs (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he has any statement to make about the strike of footplate men on the railways.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. The strike of locomotive drivers and fire-


men is in protest against the introduction of additional lodging turns. It is Wholly unofficial and is confined, so far, to Paddington, Bristol and Newton Abbot in the Western Region of British Railways. According to my latest information at these places, 906 men have failed to report for duty today out of a total of 1,008. This has of course resulted in substantial interference with passenger and freight traffic.
The lodging turns now in dispute had already been agreed between the British Transport Commission and the trade unions concerned through the established machinery. The unions have urged their members to honour their obligations.
I much regret the inconvenience which has been caused to the public, and I earnestly hope that the men taking part in this unofficial stoppage will, on reflection realise the importance of loyally carrying out agreements entered into by their union.

Mr. Isaacs: Whilst recognising the difficulty of the Minister in intervening in this type of dispute, may I assure him that all of us who have had experience of trade union negotiation will support his plea that the men shall return to proper trade union rules?

Mr. Monslow: In supplementation of what has been said by the two right hon. Gentlemen, may I join in expressing the hope that the men will respond to the appeal of their organisation by a return to work? I want to direct attention to what I regard as a complete distortion of fact by certain organs of the Press in a very delicate situation, and I plead that they may cease. Having regard to the policy pursued by the trade unions in respect of the matter, may I say that only a minimum of sacrifice is called for

by any man as a result of the arrangements which have been arrived at between the respective trade unions and the Transport Commission?

Sir W. Monckton: I wish to say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) for what they have said. The latter hon. Member has had long experience in carrying out the sort of duties which are here in dispute and has had a long and honourable experience in the trade union principally concerned. ft is a great comfort to me to know that I have the support of the right hon. Member and the hon. Member in urging these men to go back and follow the advice of their trade union.

Sir I. Fraser: Could my right hon. and learned Friend publish the details of the matter in dispute? What are the lodging turns?

Sir W. Monekroo: I think it is sufficient for me to say that lodging turns have been a problem with us over the years, well understood by the union, by the men, and the British Transport Commission.

DIVISION LIST ERROR

Mr. Elliot: May I call attention to the fact that in the Votes and Proceedings yesterday, my name was omitted from Division No. 101 and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) was inserted instead? I should be glad, Mr. Speaker, if you could make the alteration.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into that matter and, if a correction has to be made, I will see that it is done.

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th May].

[Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

3.32 p.m.

Clause 1.—(THE INDEPENDENT TELE- VISION AUTHORITY.)

Sir Robert Grimston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "direct," to insert:
by notice in writing, a copy of which shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
I hope that, whatever differences there may be between the two sides of the Committee on the Bill, we may agree on one point, that the Authority to be set up should be a body of prestige and standing, not only for the work it has to do, but also in order that it may attract men of the right type to serve upon it. Under the terms of the Bill,
The Postmaster-General may at any time direct that any member of the Authority shall cease to hold office.
In our opinion, the position should not be left quite like that. We quite agree that it is necessary for the Postmaster-General to have that power, but my Amendment proposes that if he exercises it Parliament should be informed. That is the meaning of the Amendment which says that Parliament should be informed
by notice in writing, a copy of which shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
That does not imply the cumbrous machinery of an Order in Council subject to 40 days during which a Prayer may be moved, but merely that the information shall be laid. Then, if it is thought necessary by any hon. Member, the matter can be raised by Question on the Adjournment, possibly on the Vote of the salary of the Postmaster-General, or in some other way. We feel that Parliament should recognise that this body will be of sufficient importance that none of its members should be arbitrarily dismissed by a Postmaster-General without Parliament having been informed.
This Amendment would raise the standing and prestige of the proposed body and would give the impression to anyone invited to serve upon it that Parliament

regards that service as service of importance. I hope that this is a matter on which we may take the Opposition with us, because it is designed merely to strengthen the Authority.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): This Amendment deals with a contingency which is not likely to arise. It has never arisen in the case of the B.B.C. and I hope that it will never arise so far as the Authority is concerned. However, I consider that there is some point in the Amendment although I do not imagine that the Committee would wish to spend much time on it. I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend has said it will merely mean laying a copy of the notice before the House. I imagine that it will entail laying a copy of the correspondence before the House, but that it would not be subject either to affirmative or negative Resolution; it would merely mean that the House would be fully informed. I consider that it is worth adopting this procedure as it gives a sense of importance to the dismissal of a member of the Authority which might otherwise be lacking.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out from "hold," to "of," in line 21, and to insert:
office for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be fixed at the time.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were discussed with the next two Amendments on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 22.

Captain Orr: I do not think that we need delay the Committee very long in considering this Amendment, which is comparatively simple, and, I hope, will prove to be uncontentious. The Clause as drafted reads:
every member of the Authority shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.…
We feel that these words are rather vague and imprecise. There is no mention in the Bill that members of the Authority shall have any specific term of office. If we are to attract persons of prestige and standing to serve on the Authority


we feel that they should have some specific term of office.
Apart from the necessity to attract the right people, there are a number of reasons why members of the Authority should have a specified term of office. If one is to visualise the Authority having any sort of continuity of policy and approach to the matters for which it is responsible naturally one would visualise a specified term of office for its members.
If programme contractors of the right sort who come forward ask, "What is the Authority like? Has it any degree of permanence in the policies about which it is talking?" If the members of the Authority do not have this security of tenure programme contractors are likely to be put off. They will say, "We are dealing with members of an Authority which may be gone in two or three months' time, when the policy may be quite different." Therefore, to give the programme contractors reasonable security and the Authority a reasonable continuity of policy we feel that this Amendment should be accepted.
3.45 p.m.
When we considered the matter originally we put down a very precise Amendment, but, on reflection, we felt that it would be better to leave to the Postmaster-General some latitude. We feel that in appointing the Authority four or five members might be appointed initially for five years and the remainder for three years. When vacancies are filled the term of office could be for five years, which would lead to a rotation in retirement and reappointment and have the effect of strengthening the Authority.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite will support this Amendment, as they regard the Authority as the watchdog to keep in order the unruly, mischievous and wicked private enterprise programme contractors.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We support this Amendment which, in effect, is exactly the same as the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friends. We are glad to see that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have so carefully followed our ideas in the matter and have abandoned the idea of the earlier Amendment, which was somewhat too rigid.
At the same time, I wish to point out that this Amendment does not have the effect of fixing the term of office which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) seemed to suggest. It merely limits the period to which the Postmaster-General may make an appointment.

Mr. Gammans: I am in sympathy with this Amendment, which I am prepared to accept. The Amendment would mean that the Postmaster-General would have the power to stagger the period of office of members of the Authority. I think it improves the wording of the Bill and I am glad that the Amendment has the support of hon. Members opposite. It is obviously desirable that appointments of this sort should be staggered, and that everyone should not retire at the same time, for, otherwise, it would mean that accumulated experience would not be available to the new Authority. This is the practice which the B.B.C. has always followed. Perhaps I may be permitted to read an extract from the B.B.C.'s Charter:
The Governors shall be appointed for such respective periods, not exceeding five years, as may be directed …
by Order in Council.
There is one other point which my hon. and gallant Friend has not mentioned, that when a man is appointed to the Authority he will be aware of the period for which he is to be appointed, and may make his arrangements accordingly. That is very desirable as most of these appointments will be on a part-time basis.

Mr. Mitchison: I understand that the Amendment covers both appointment and reappointment. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he agrees?

Mr. Gammans: That is the way I read it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he has in mind when he says that most of the members of the Authority will be part-time? Can he be a little more precise? How many will be part-time and how many full-time?

Mr. Gammans: No decision has been reached about that. The pattern which we propose to follow is that followed


by the B.B.C. A large number of its board of governors are part-time members.

Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. Friend propose also to accept the Amendment to line 22 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, if it is moved. Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line. 22, at end, insert:
(5) If any member of the Authority dies or ceases to hold office before the expiration of the term for which he was appointed, the term of office of his successor shall be so fixed as to expire at the end of the first-mentioned term, but the Postmaster-General may, if he thinks fit so to do, defer the making of an appointment until the expiration of the said first-mentioned term.—[Sir R. Grimston.]

Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert:
or an alien within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
Subsection (5) is the disqualifying subsection. Those to be disqualified include:
… a member of the Commons House of Parliament or of either House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or a Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I and my hon. Friends thought that aliens should be joined with this company indicating our view that the Independent Television Authority should not be dominated by foreign persons or foreign capital. We bring forward the Amendment in order to ascertain the views of the Assistant Postmaster-General upon the point.

Captain Orr: I am rather worried about the words:
… within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
So far as I understand the Act, it includes citizens of the Irish Republic, and I should have thought that it was desirable to exclude them.

Mr. Bell: An alien is defined as being a person who is not a British subject, a British protected person or a citizen of Ireland.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I support the Amendment. I do not do so because I or any of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in any sense anti-foreign. I am sure that citizens of the Republic of Ireland would not be excluded by this provision; that is not our intention, and they are not foreign in our law. Our reason for supporting the Amendment is that we feel that the regulations on the matter ought to be stronger than they are in regard to the BBC.
The situation in the case of the B.B.C. is covered by paragraph 11 of the Licence, which says that subject to conditions which may be prescribed by the Postmaster-General, aliens may be employed by the B.B.C., and we should not want to alter that provision. However, in the case of the B.B.C. we are dealing with a public service, but in this case we are dealing with people broadcasting for profit, and there is, therefore, a completely different state of affairs, which needs control. As the Bill indicates, these are people who cannot be trusted in any way, but the B.B.C. can be trusted.
In this case there is a special danger of domination by American interests against which we must guard. We do not want to specify Americans in the Bill, and it is better to include them by merely talking about aliens. It is dangerous that the Authority should be exposed to a great deal of American influence and flooding. My hon. Friends and I are in favour of the Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Gammans: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) will not press this Amendment, because I doubt whether he realises all its implications. He says that it would not disqualify people who may be regarded as Commonwealth citizens, British protected citizens or citizens of the Irish Republic. Indeed, they would all be included.
The main objection to accepting the Amendment, however, is that it would conflict with the policy of the Government—with that of the previous Government, also, I am sure—which is to oppose all foreign restrictions placed upon the activities of our nationals abroad. Although I cannot imagine the Post-


master-General, in a matter of this sort, appointing anybody who was not intimately connected with our way of life, the precedent might be used in treaties with foreign nations in a much more serious context. It might be used in cases where we did not want it to be applied. If we were to impose by law a statutory obligation on the part of the Postmaster-General only to appoint Commonwealth or British citizens, we might find that used against us in a way that we should not desire. Nor do I think it is necessary. As I have said, I cannot imagine any Postmaster-General appointing anyone who was not intimately connected with our way of life.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) suggested that there was an essential difference between this body and the B.B.C. There are differences, of course, but I do not think that there is any very great difference between the B.B.C. and the Authority. Both are charged with certain definite obligations to this House, and I hope that the Independent Television Authority will exercise its obligations in the spirit in which the B.B.C. has exercised its own. I would remind the Committee that in making the appointments the Postmaster-General is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, and if he were to appoint someone whom the House thought undesirable, the matter could be raised in the House.
For the reasons which I have given, and particularly the undesirable repercussions which it might have upon our foreign relations and upon our negotiations in respect of European Convention on the Reciprocal Treatment of Nations, we cannot accept the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The Assistant Postmaster-General seems to be in agreement with the first part of the Amendment, but is not willing to accept it, for what seems to be rather a lame excuse. There is a difference between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and in view of the importance of a public authority such as this, there should be a safeguard in the Bill to provide that only British subjects are appointed.
As far as reciprocity is concerned, I do not think it comes into the picture at all.

I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I cannot conceive what possible harm can be done to British interests abroad by saying that, on a matter which affects British broadcasting, no one shall be appointed who is not a British subject. I think the hon. Gentleman is making excuses for not doing something which the hon. Gentleman really feels ought to be done. If he can give us an instance of the way in which it might affect British interests abroad, 1 shall be prepared to listen, but I do not think it would, for this further reason.
In the case of any foreign authority broadcasting abroad with a national responsibility—whether it be a semi-public or a public corporation—I cannot conceive of them appointing British subjects to carry out that work, and 1 do not see where this reciprocity comes in at all. I am one of those people who believe that, in the case of an important British service such as this, it ought to be carried out by British people, and I do not see that any harm is done by putting it in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I cannot understand why the Assistant Postmaster-General has rejected this Amendment. After all, this is entirely a British institution which is to be concerned only with television within the United Kingdom. It is not concerned at all with foreign broadcasts, and surely the Assistant Postmaster-General does not envisage the possibility of a foreign national being appointed as a member of the Authority. If he does not envisage that, why cannot he accept the Amendment?
The point about which some of us are rather worried concerns commercial television, which is an American institution, and we fear that pressure will be brought in order to include American programmes in the programmes broadcast by the Authority. It may be that, at a certain stage, to assist in the finances of the Authority, it might be considered desirable by those who have commercial interests at heart to include an American type of programme. We are opposed to that, and we think that the Committee should insert in the Bill the terms of this Amendment so that there may not be included on the Authority anybody who is not of British nationality.
Cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General give us any convincing reason for rejecting the Amendment? He said that it is not necessary. Does he suggest that there is no likelihood that it will be done? If that is so, why will he not accept the Amendment?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am very anxious that we should not occupy unnecessary time on this matter; I want to play the game, and place as much time as possible at the disposal of the Opposition.
I should like to say quite frankly that there is no arrière pensée in the present wording of the Bill. It does not hide any concealed desire that any people of any nationality should be appointed to the Authority. There is substance in the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) that there has been a general desire that the Authority should be composed of people of British nationality, and, therefore, that we should say so in the Bill.
I fully recognise that, and I think it is the general feeling, but I should like to emphasise the point which my hon. Friend made, and which, I know, will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and also the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), because of the part which they have taken in foreign affairs in the past.
The Committee will remember that my hon. Friend mentioned the negotiations on the European Convention on the Reciprocal Treatment of Nations. That is one point which it is desired should not be prejudiced by action in this way. The other point which I should like to put to the Committee is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been Ministers will be fully aware that, when a point like this arises—and it arises as the Committee will appreciate, in regard to a subsequent Clause which we shall be discussing later—there is always a fear on the part of the Department concerned with overseas matters, first, whether it might be infringing certain existing treaties, and, secondly, whether it may infringe other treaties that are in prospect.
I think that the Committee is entitled to have greater details than we have prepared at the moment, and, in that respect, I put myself on the mercy of the Committee. I had not anticipated that there would be such general feeling on this Amendment, and, therefore, I should like to fortify myself by having more information on the way in which it would affect the overseas Departments, and I apologise to the Committee for not having it now. We have had general consultations and have been given their point of view, but I have not got the details.
I therefore suggest—and I hope it will meet the view of the Committee—that I should ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment at the moment, and also ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to refuse him leave to withdraw it. Meanwhile, I shall get the detailed information for which I have been asked, in the hope that this may not go unnoticed and that the matter may be dealt with quite shortly on Report. If required, I will communicate to the right hon. Gentleman the further information which I obtain so that he can consider it before the Report stage. I hope that meets the spirit of the matter, and that it will prevent the Committee being delayed too long on this point.

Mr. Walter Elliot: I trust that the information will also be conveyed to my hon. and learned Friend, because my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned only the right hon. Gentleman opposite?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Of course, I will certainly write to my hon. and learned Friend also.

Mr. Elliot: Although my right hon. and learned Friend has not given an absolute undertaking, it is still an undertaking that he will give sympathetic consideration to the arguments which have been advanced, and that, if they do not conflict with treaty obligations he will see whether some words can be included at a later stage. On that understanding, we should be very willing to see the Amendment withdrawn, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend will be willing to accept that view.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for being so very much more forthcoming than the Assistant Post-


master-General on this matter. We take it that some means will be provided by which the matter can be discussed again on Report stage, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman's conclusions may be after his inquiries; otherwise, we lose our right to express our view on the matter. Subject to that, and thanking him very much for the way in which he has dealt with the point, we would not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Mr. Philip Bell: In view of the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2 line 31, to leave out "such."
I understand from the Chair that we should discuss with this Amendment the related Amendments in lines 31, 37 and 46, adding a new paragraph (b).
The purpose of the group of Amendments is to prevent the Authority from becoming a coterie of advertisers, advertising agents and programme companies. We seek to exclude from the Authority people who have an interest in programme companies, advertising agencies or advertising. From time to time the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Home Secretary have informed us that the Government do not want any kind of sponsorship, and they have, therefore, drawn a very tight line between the advertisers and the programme companies so that the latter shall not be in the hands of the advertisers. What the Government have apparently not decided is that those interested in advertising and programme making shall not sit as members of the Independent Television Authority.
I thought it was the general view of the Committee that the Authority should be completely independent. That is the point that we are stressing in this group of Amendments. One can imagine that if the Assistant Postmaster-General puts the advertising agents and programme companies on the railway train, so to speak, they might soon get charge of the engine. It is desirable to bar any undue influence upon the Authority from any representative of the interests I have mentioned.
Advertisers will be spending substantial sums of money, and if an advertiser were appointed as a member of the Authority he would be open to the suspicion that he was seeking preferential treatment for his own product. The same kind of thing is true of a person interested in an advertising agency. One can easily see that it will be inappropriate for a director of a programme company to be a member of the Independent Television Authority.
4.15 p.m.
That is our case for these four Amendments and I should think they would appeal to the sense of fairness of public decency of hon. Members. The Assistant Postmaster-General and the Home Secretary have been very forthcoming so far, in regard to the Amendments already considered by the Committee. I hope they will respond in the same way to the group of which I am moving the first Amendment. We are putting forward a reasonable case, and we hope that it will meet with the sweet reasonableness already shown. The Independent Television Authority should start on the right basis, untrammelled and independent. It must have no strings, financial or otherwise.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has the best intentions, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be able to accept the Amendments. I want to be reasonable about this, but the Amendments are far-fetched, quite apart from any consideration of how we are to apply them.
Let us think it out. A man is to be appointed to the Independent Television Authority, and he is a first-class fellow. We must not approve of him too readily, however, because although he has no financial interests, according to the Amendments he has not to be interested in any product whatsoever that has ever been advertised or might be advertised in a programme. He cannot even be a distant, small shareholder in some business, even though he has no idea that it is likely to come into a programme. Although the intention behind these Amendments may be good, these are about the silliest Amendments I have ever seen on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hobson: Rubbish.

Mr. Hirst: I do not say that the intentions of the Amendment are not good. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) shouting out like that. I should have thought he would have been one of the first to realise how absurd these Amendments are. Their fault is that the words are so strong. If appointed, a member must have no interest whatsoever:
…. in any business, corporate body, partnership or organisation advertising or advertised in any programme broadcast by the Authority.
I suggest that the House should not spend much time on these Amendments, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will reject them.

Mr. Mitchison: We have just been told that we are irresponsible people who have put down some silly Amendments. I propose to take up that challenge.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. and learned Member must not put words into my mouth. I did not accuse any hon. Member of being irresponsible. I expressed the persona] opinion that the Amendments are silly. That is not the same thing.

Mr. Mitchison: I gladly accept the hon. Member's correction, but 1 think that he would be wise if he thought again before expressing such a wholly untenable personal opinion.
In these three Amendments we are really suggesting two quite separate matters, and I hope to put them quite separately. One of our troubles with the Home Secretary is that we put before him a number of attractive propositions, and whether it is that he cannot always decide between so many attractive things the fact remains that he is extraordinarily apt to turn down the whole lot. I hope that that will not be the case here.
The first proposition is that certain interests which, in the Bill itself, are recognised as possibly undesirable and possibly disqualifying interests should be made absolutely so and that the question should not be left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General. Quite frankly, the history of this business does not induce us particularly to trust the Postmaster-General in matters of this sort, but I do not put it merely on those grounds.
Let us assume that in this matter the Postmaster-General had no faintly discreditable past and was someone in whom we had complete confidence. Even then I regard it as quite obviously undesirable that a person having a financial or other interest of any kind in an advertising agency should also be a member of the Authority whose main purpose is to control advertising agencies—and, I may add, advertising agents. I find it quite impossible to conceive of any circumstances in which a person having a financial or other interest in an advertising agency could properly be nominated as a member of the Authority.
From the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) we had what I shall not call by its current colloquial name, but the not uncommon excuse that the interest is or might be only a small one. The hon. Member should have remembered that there are similar obligations in other spheres. Company directors, for instance, are under an absolute obligation to disclose interests, however small, which they may have in other companies. In the same way, as we were told the other day by the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), we may at present have the case where a man may be disqualified from sitting in this House—I think very properly—because he is a contractor with the Government.
In relation both to the duties of company directors and the duties of hon. Members one does not look at the size of the contract. One simply says that there shall be no conflict whatever between a man's financial or other interests and his duties as a responsible person, whether as a Member of this House or as a company director.
Why should a different standard be adopted for the Authority? Why should the very people with whom the Authority will have to deal be allowed in, on the one hand, as the persons to be judged and, on the other, as the judges? If someone has an interest in an advertising agency we should say—without looking at the amount—that any interest should disqualify. It may be said that in other nationalisation Measures the matter has been left to the discretion of the responsible Minister. I suggest that what we are here considering is essentially different.
The whole purpose of the Authority is to exercise, on behalf of the community, the Government—and Parliament itself, which is passing or is about to pass this Measure—control over advertising, advertising agencies and advertisers. In this Bill the question of whether or not a man can be in both camps at the same time is to be left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General. What 1 have said I shall not repeat in regard to the category shown in brackets in subsection (6) of Clause 1, but it is perfectly clear that the same principle applies with equal force to the type of manufacturer and the type of contractors there mentioned. The point is exactly the same.
Secondly, why have advertisers been completely omitted? As the Bill stands a man, even though he has a very large, perhaps a controlling, interest in some advertiser, may be appointed, and the Postmaster-General is not bound to satisfy himself that an interest of that sort would not conflict with the performance of that person's duties as a member of the Authority. Indeed, the Bill indicates the contrary, because it does specify other cases in which the Postmaster-General must so satisfy himself.
I cannot understand what reason there can be for this omission. I think I am not out of order in pointing out that one of the duties of the Authority is to see that the rules with regard to advertisements are carried out. Nevertheless, at the same time an advertiser whose conduct may be called into question with regard to those rules can be considered a fit person to sit on the Authority and to decide whether or not there has been a breach of the rules.
Then, again, there are the programme contracts. It is true that they are made with the programme contractors, but behind the programme contractors are the advertisers and the advertising interests. It is the Authority which is charged with the duty and the responsibility of making those contracts. In those contracts it has its sole method of enforcing obligations on the programme contractors. It is upon that Authority that, apparently, we propose to allow advertisers to sit. I can conceive of nothing more monstrous.
To suggest that the Amendment is silly gives me the impression that the hon. Member for Shipley must be so particularly interested in advertising in some form or another that he is unable to see the plain duty—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hirst: I think that is a very improper statement to make. No matter whether anyone happens to be interested, I am not.

Mr. Mitchison: I gladly accept from the hon. Member that he has no financial interest in any advertising agency. I did not mean to convey that he had. What I intended to say, and what I repeat, is that in this matter he is looking at the interests of the advertisers—

Mr. Hirst: Nonsense.

Mr. Mitchison: —and if I said more than that I gladly withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the interests of the advertisers with a complete disregard of the duties of the Authority and the duties that we In this Committee have to safeguard the public in a matter of this sort. I should have thought it was quite indefensible to allow advertisers to sit on the Authority.
I should have thought that the objections to the Bill were well known by now to hon. and right hon. Members apposite. They may agree with them or they may disagree, but they must recognise that there is the gravest public anxiety and disquiet about the role that the advertising agencies will play in this matter. We are not merely talking about irresponsible people. I am talking about people concerned with education, with children's programmes, with the provision of news, with some impartiality in our affairs, and the thing that is troubling them is that behind this screen of programme contractors and the rest they see an opportunity open to the advertising men who are to pay for a considerable part of this form of television.
In these circumstances, to allow one of the people prominently concerned to sit on the Authority and have part in the responsible duties of the Authority seems to me a most flagrant and shameless disregard of public opinion in a matter that primarily concerns the public. I therefore say that these


Amendments, so far from being silly, are obviously a sensible method of trying to protect to some extent, in a Bill which is in itself sadly defective, the requirements and reasonable interests of the public.

Mr. Elliot: Are we not in danger of getting somewhat far from the matter under discussion and of indulging in merely fanciful suggestions? The problem before us is simply this. We wish to select good people for the Authority. We do not wish, in trying to obtain excellent people, to exclude everybody from the Authority, but as far as I can gather from the effect of the Amendments I cannot think of anybody who would not be excluded. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not intend this, but that is the effect.
I have been going over it in my mind. I really cannot think of anybody anywhere who would not be excluded. Lawyers would be excluded if they did anything except law—if they washed their faces, for instance, because it would be said that they had an interest in a soap business that might very properly be advertised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am reinforced by the expressions of dissent coming from the benches opposite. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have drawn their net too tightly. It would be difficult to defend against a skilled lawyer such as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and several other hon. Gentlemen opposite a case like that.
I should not like to defend my position on this Authority, for instance, as a traveller by B.O.A.C. against such hon. and learned Gentlemen, for I should fear that I should find myself disqualified for the position. A member of the Cooperative Society might, or even a reader of the "Listener," a prominent advertiser, that spends a good deal of money, quite rightly, in advertising its eminent virtues.
I cannot imagine stronger words of exclusion:
… that person will have … no financial or other interest whatsoever in any advertising … or in any business …
in any of these programmes. I am thinking of the simple things that we daily consume.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that

the Home Secretary will reassure him, that he can wash his face and read the ''Listener" with impunity. I do not think that by doing either of those things he will acquire an interest in the firm that provides the soap or in the "Listener."

Mr. Elliot: The word is "whatsoever." I certainly should not like to defend that position against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). He has drawn analogies far finer than that and succeeded with them, and drawn them against the advice of eminent lawyers on his own side who have counselled the House of Commons and, indeed, the Government, and who declared that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong, only to find that, subsequently learned judges held that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right.
I may be allowed to wash my face, but I should not be allowed to tell anybody I washed it, or tell anybody the name of the soap with which I washed my face, for that would certainly be regarded as giving me an interest in it. I can imagine how the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch would play with a consideration like that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not arguing against the words already in the Clause? The subsection already says:
… that person will have no such financial or other interest.…
Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing against the Clause or the Amendments?

Mr. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the subsection or the Amendments. The subsection says:
… financial or other interest … as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions.…
The Amendment will bring in the word "whatsoever." The subsection would read:
… financial or other interest whatsoever.…
Presumably the word "whatsoever" is intended to stiffen up, and very greatly to stiffen up, the subsection.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Even if the word "whatsoever" is inserted the words "likely to affect prejudicially" will still be there


and will limit even the word "whatsoever."

Mr. Elliot: Is the hon. Member then pretending that the words he and his hon. and right hon. Friends wish to insert have no meaning whatsoever? Do they wish the whole thing to be left entirely to the discretion of the Postmaster-General? That is not the argument that has been put forward from those benches. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have said that too much discretion is left to him and that this discretion must be limited and fettered. If the argument is that they do not intend in any way to limit and fetter the discretion of the Postmaster-General we are converging, and can rapidly come to a conclusion on this point.
I was dealing with the case presented, which, in the recollection of the Committee, was certainly that a considerable further limitation upon the discretion of the Postmaster-General was desirable, and words were suggested to effect the limitation. I am suggesting only, without any attempt to put words into the mouths of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, that, quite unwittingly, they have drawn their net too tightly, and that if the Amendments are accepted there will be a great danger of exactly what we do not desire to see brought about, namely, a limitation so stiff that it will exclude not merely the persons we all wish excluded but those we desire to include.
We desire to exclude from a controlling interest those who are likely to be substantially affected in their judgments by their businesses or their way of life, or even by their immediate interests. I fully agree. I think those people should be excluded, and if the Clause does not exclude them, let us have words that will, but there is a danger, in seeking to get rid of those people, of getting rid of all sorts of other people hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee would be most willing should be included.
I suggest that we should look at these words again, because I cannot help feeling that they have been drawn too tightly. They would expose persons appointed to the Authority to a risk. We have just seen my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson)

temporarily excluded from Parliament, so that we have had to pass an indemnity Bill to clear him from fines and penalties because of a shadowy, tenuous connection with Crown patronage that none of us could reasonably have anticipated would have brought him within the mischief of the Act. It would have been a sad thing for us all if he had been permanently excluded from Parliament, and we should all have sympathised with him if he had been subjected to fines and penalties.
But that is the sort of thing which will make people chary of going on bodies such as this. The danger is that we may draw the provisions so tightly that people who are desirous of serving, and who are desirable in every way, will say to the Postmaster-General, "This is so finely drawn that I have far distant connections which might possibly bring me within the mischief of the section. Consequently, I cannot accept your invitation." I hope right hon. and hon. Members will consider whether these words are not far too tight.

Mr. George Darling: One of the differences between the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and ourselves is to be seen in the use of the word "substantial." I am referring now to his speech and not to the Amendment or the Bill. He said that he would like to exclude people who are substantially interested or affected by commercial television. We would omit the word "substantially." and say that anybody who is affected by the business side of television should not be on the Authority.

Mr. Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to my particular argument—that there is almost nobody who is not affected in some way or another by the prohibition that he must not have an interest in anything being advertised?

Mr. Ness Edwards: "Financial or other interest."

Mr. Elliot: That is what the Bill says.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my speech now.
What we are concerned about—and the views of the right hon. Gentleman do not lead me to think that we have not made our point clearly, either in the Amendment or in our speeches—is to balance in


the Authority the business interests which will be looking after the programme companies or the advertising agents for the businesses which will come into the programmes, either in advertising their products or, in the case of the agency, making arrangements for the advertisers. We want to see all those interests kept out of the membership of the Authority. We think it is desirable in the public interests that they should be kept out, and to do that we have to draw the Clause very closely. We do not want to see any escape holes at all.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) seemed to be under the impression that the only people who can serve in the public interest on an Authority of this kind are those drawn from the narrow business circle with which we are concerned. In fact, there are other people—lawyers, teachers, people who play a part in local government, trade union officials, housewives, workers in industry, people who play a part in public life, ordinary people—who might be on the Authority.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hirst: But surely most of those whom the hon. Member mentions as possible candidates could easily come within the terms of the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) pointed out, they have an interest in the goods advertised.

Mr. Darling: They certainly have no financial interest in the goods advertised.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: The hon. Member has mentioned a trade unionist. A trade unionist could easily be a member of the Co-operative Society, and the Co-operative Society could easily be one of the advertisers. He would, therefore, be excluded by this narrow definition.

Mr. Darling: If this Clause is passed as we seek to amend it, obviously nobody associated in any way with the Cooperative movement could serve on this Authority. We accept that position.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Or customers of the Co-op.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Darling: I think I have given way enough.
Obviously, customers will not be referred to in the Clause as amended. It would read, in effect, "no persons having financial or other interests whatsoever whose interests are likely to affect prejudicially the discharge of their functions." A customer of the Co-operative Society will not be affected in that way.
Hon. Members opposite are making far too much of the Amendment. We put it down to try to ensure that there shall be no loophole, and I think it is perfectly clear. Our purpose is to make sure that the business interests on one side of this affair will be balanced in the Authority by having no business interest there whatever.
There are two important points which I want to put to the Minister, and I hope I shall be supported in them by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers). The small and medium-sized advertising agencies in this country are becoming rather worried about what is to happen to them and to their clients under commercial television if the Bill is passed, the Authority is set up and the second programme becomes a commercial television programme. They are already beginning to lose clients to the larger agencies—clients who want their goods advertised on television—because the smaller and medium-sized agencies are not big enough and have not enough capital to arrange for television programmes to be provided.
I am quite sure that if we do not make it clear that advertising interests may not serve on the Authority, the smaller agencies will feel that they are being rather shabbily treated, not only by losing clients to the larger agencies but also by seeing representatives of, or people associated with, the larger agencies serving on the Authority. I am sure that no one would like that to happen.

Captain Orr: Anybody who is interested in an advertising agency is excluded by the Bill.

Mr. Darling: I meant an indirect interest. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, large clients of agencies, who use the same agencies for many years, begin to have perhaps not a financial interest but nevertheless an interest in the success of the agency. They like to be associated with its progress.
I think we should also always bear in mind that at least half-a-dozen of the larger advertising agencies in this country, which are keenly concerned about the development of commercial television, are, in effect, British branches of American agencies. I do not want to pursue an anti-American line, but I think it is necessary that we should keep that point of view in mind, and the best way to deal with it is to make certain in the terms of the Bill that nobody directly or indirectly associated with an advertising agency or the products which are advertised by the agency shall sit on the Authority. For those very good reasons, I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I intervene because I think we should try to get clear the differences between us on the Amendment and deal with them. That is the spirit in which I intervene.
There is some difficulty about the wording of the Amendment—the words "such" and "whatsoever" in the subsection—and about whether they achieve the purpose which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had in mind, namely, to make it an absolute disqualification and not a disqualification only where the Postmaster-General thinks that the interest is prejudicial. That is as I read the legal effect of the Amendment.
On the other hand, I will deal with the substance of the point, although I think the hon. and learned Member would be disposed to agree with me, if he considers the point, that even if the words "no (interest whatsoever" were inserted, in that context they might still be qualified by the subsequent words. I do not know what is the hon. and learned Member's experience of cases concerned with the word "interest." My experience is that it is one of the most difficult words to delimit.
If I may give one personal experience, it was certainly applied to voting rights in a company, although the existing share structure of the company brought no dividends to a certain individual. I think I am right in saying that this word has always been considered one of the widest that are known to the law. The phrase "financial or other interest" would clearly contemplate an interest in the

share structure of a company. I am now meeting the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who desires that the holding of a small number of shares would be an absolute bar.
I do not think that, on reflection, anyone would agree with that. If one happened to inherit or acquire in some way, in the chancy way that these things happen, 50 shares in a company, I should have thought that that would be a case in which a safety valve or some escape method would be required. The method that is suggested here is that of the Postmaster-General being satisfied. I will deal with the origin of that method in a moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been quite frank about the matter, and I will point out quite clearly the ancestry of the words. There may be a small income from some preference or fixed dividend shares which legally give an interest, and yet which clearly mean very little.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this phrase occurs in other nationalisation Acts, but a judge in court, for instance, would regard 10 shares or 10 million shares in a company as equally a matter which would disqualify him from deciding that case without consent from both sides.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly, he would feel that he ought to tell the counsel in the case that he had such an interest, and equally clearly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in every case counsel would say, "That is a matter of no importance at all; please go on hearing the case." That is what happens in fact, and in my experience it has always happened. Therefore, I do not think that the point takes the hon. and learned Gentlemen a great deal further, and I think that the point to which he and his hon. Friends must address their minds—it is a serious point—is whether they really want the holding of a number of shares which any reasonable person would suppose had no prejudicial effect, to be a disqualification. I do not think they would.
Actually, the words as they are at present drawn would cover a legal interest as opposed to a beneficial interest, and would cover a trustee. I do not want to take niggling points, because it would be quite easy to put in "beneficial


interest" and deal with that matter. The substantial point that I make is that the holding of shares ought to be subject to some reasonable decision as to whether they are prejudicial or not.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, the ancestry of the words is in the nationalisation Measures, and we had particularly in mind the Iron and Steel Act which the Labour Government brought in and for which they were responsible. The words there are:
Before appointing a person to be a member of the Corporation, the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the exercise or performance by him of his functions as a member of the Corporation.…
Therefore, the test that has been propounded is the test of the Minister concerned.
I do not intend any offence when I say that I am sure that when hon. Members opposite consider the real question on which we are engaged, they will say, as they have said in the past, that the person who should apply the test is the Minister concerned, as is proposed in the Bill. When their feelings are assuaged towards those Ministers concerned—my noble Friend the Postmaster-General, the Assistant Postmaster-General and myself —I cannot help feeling, and I would be prepared to wager a modest sum, that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) who has held the office of Postmaster-General and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) who has held the office of Assistant Postmaster-General, would not really relish this duty to be taken away from the office that they have adorned.

Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way once more. We do want to get this point clear. The Iron and Steel Act does not specify any particular kind of interest as an absolute disqualification. What we are seeking to do is to leave the generality of interests to the discretion of the Postmaster-General, but to give to him a direction that in certain cases he should regard any interest as a disqualifying one.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am trying to answer his argument. Whether I satisfy him, of course, is a different matter.
The Bill says that the Postmaster-General shall satisfy himself in the same way with regard to these classes: advertising agencies, any business concerned with the manufacture or sale of apparatus for wireless telegraphy or other telegraphic equipment, or any business concerned in running the programmes. In these businesses I think it is unreasonable to leave it to the Postmaster-General to decide whether the interest is one that is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge of his functions.
Again, I put the point that the acquisition in one way or another of a small number of shares really does not affect the position, and I think that that is the difference between us on the first point. I say that it should be left to the Minister to decide whether the shareholding is likely to affect prejudicially. After all, in the Iron and Steel Act the words are
such financial or other interest.
Therefore, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that if those words were translated into practical terms, what is really meant is a shareholding in a company that would affect him prejudicially.
In that case, the only difference is that that has to be general, whereas here—and I thought this would really be welcomed by hon. and right hon. Members opposite—we have said quite clearly that the Postmaster-General must look at any shareholding in companies doing that and decide whether it is sufficient possibly to adversely affect the person. That is the first point, and I think that is the difference between us there, but I do not think that this is a very great difference.
5.0 p.m.
The second point is, I think, a great difference. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want any member of the Authority to hold any shares in the company which does or might advertise on television. I think there is a difference between us and that it is a fundamental difference.

Mr. Mitchison: Which does?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that "does." of course, states the present position, but if companies are not advertising at the moment they might be advertising in a short time and the mischief would


be the same. As I have said in a different context, this would really rule out anyone who had shares in the vast majority of industrial companies. As I see it, if we do not allow on the Authority anyone who is connected with an advertiser, that is a company that advertises, then we prevent ourselves from recruiting for the Authority from anyone who has shares in the vast majority of industrial companies. That, I think, is ridiculous.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Surely within the terms of the Bill only in so far
as is likely to affect prejudicially …
their duty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments which related to the first point do, in fact, answer him on the second point.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I kept them distinct, because I do not think that they do. I want to put it quite frankly. That is why I said I did not think there was very much between us on the first point, but I thought that there was a great deal between us on the second point.
For example—I do not want to quote actual companies, because that may introduce a person—suppose we had a company that made bicycles and wanted to advertise bicycles. I am taking something which is not connected with the actual equipment of television. We might have someone who owns a very great number of shares in that bicycle company. I should have thought that the fact that that bicycle company was going to advertise on television, as they advertise in the Press or in any other means of advertising open to them, was not in any way a bar to his being a member of the Authority. That is the difference between us.
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) when he said that, of course, there would have to be a variety of people on the Authority. As I have said in our discussions, I entirely approve, and I cannot imagine there not being a trade unionist on this Authority. There are a number of categories which, obviously, have to be considered when we are discussing this. I do not think that we ought to rule out the successful business man because he has a holding or his money is invested in industry. I do not think that for that

reason he ought to be prevented from being a member of the Authority.
The Postmaster-General will, of course, look into any special position and is bound to consider, if he does his duty as I am sure he will, whether the person is suitable. It may be that he has taken, or is taking, a very active part in the work of the company which would make him unsuitable, but I do not think that in this case a large holding or the holding of certain investments should be a bar, because this is twice removed. This is not a programme company; this is a person who is to carry out an ordinary commercial function, that is placing his advertisement in the places where he will get the best return.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Might it not be the duty of the Authority to decide that a particular advertisement put in a programme by a programme company was good, bad or improper? It might be an advertisement put in by the very firm in which the man had interests. Is not that something that ought to be avoided?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a point provided for in the running of every company. It is provided in every company's articles and provided for by the man taking no part in that in which he has a commercial interest. That is a point which ever since the joint stock companies have been in existence has been dealt with.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is not a joint stock company. It is a great public Authority.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not putting this point with any irritation; I am merely answering the right hon. Gentleman, that this occurs in every public authority, and in all the public authorities set up under the nationalised industries. We get people on these authorities who have their interests. If the interests conflict, they follow the usual course adopted in dealing with it. The fundamental difference between us on this point is that we think that to exclude advertisers would be to exclude those who have been successful in business and industry and who, therefore, hold investments, and we think that the Authority would be much poorer if we were to make that exclusion.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke just now about the articles of companies. Has he noticed that the First Schedule of the Bill does provide for certain cases where a member of the Authority must disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Authority? But that is not this case. That is the case of programme contractors. When it comes to the case of enforcing the rules against an advertiser, there is no such provision in the First Schedule. On the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made just now, that provision ought to have been put in the First Schedule.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that anyone in those circumstances would not act and that the chairman would see that he would not act.

Mr. Shackleton: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must look at this argument again. It seems to me that if we concede him his objections to the first two Amendments which we are discussing—and I am not saying that we are prepared to do so—there can be no possible objection on his part to accepting the third one. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments tended towards that point. It seems that, like the Government generally, he is still unaware of some of the implications of commercial television. One of our great objections is the possibility of direct influence by the advertiser on the programmes. The advertiser is just as likely to have a special interest in these matters as the programme contractor.
Let me take a particular point. I assure the Committee that I intend nothing personal about the very distinguished gentleman to whom I refer. Take, for instance, somebody like Sir Geoffrey Heyworth, of Levers, a man of high public esteem, the type of individual who, we could all say, could safely be put on any body. But Levers are one of the biggest advertisers. So, in looking for suitable people to put on the I.T.A., there is quite a likelihood that one might have under consideration people whose companies were advertising in a big way.
Quite apart from the personalities concerned, would the Home Secretary think it desirable that such a person should serve on the Authority? If he thinks it

is not desirable, why should we not put into the Bill a broad direction in relation to advertisers along the same lines as the broad direction which is already included in relation to programme contractors and advertising agencies? I am not arguing the first two points. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accuse us on this occasion of introducing contradictory Amendments. If the matter was considered, the Government could make a real concession and one that would give to the public mind rather more confidence in the Authority.

Mr. Pitman: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has emphasised that there is complete unanimity on both sides of the Committee as to the desired aim that the people who are appointed to the Authority should conduct themselves without any prejudice. It is only in respect of the means of achieving what both sides want to do that there is any problem. To my mind there are two elements of difficulty. First, there is the objective definition of what is an interest, and then there is the subjective determinant of the interpretation of who comes within that objective definition. If we make the first half too restrictive, we shall be excluding virtually everybody from serving.
Consider the case of the mutual insurance companies, with their vast industrial business. A mutual insurance company may have a share in, say, Levers, to whom reference has been made. If the first half of the test were too restrictive in its objective definition, anybody with a policy in the company would be forced to surrender it before accepting nomination by the Postmaster-General. That would similarly apply in the case of building societies and the Co-operative movement, and in the case of every shareholder in every large-scale company. Probably 90 per cent, of the population would be potentially excluded.
Moreover, what about wives? Suppose that an extremely successful woman is managing director of an advertising agency. As I understand it, her husband would not vitiate the first part of the test in accordance with the interpretation given by some hon. Members opposite, but under the Bill as it stands he could properly be excluded on the subjective side. I would think that that would apply equally to Sir Geoffrey


Heyworth, and that he would not allow his name to go forward because of his interest in that way. What we want is a means of excluding those people who would be prejudicially affected and a means of interpreting the objective side so that the subjective side of the Clause may work effectively.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is quite reasonable. I should like to ask him a question. I understand his objections to the first two Amendments; they are really a separate matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) has pointed out. Do I gather that the hon. Member would agree that the same duty might be put upon the Postmaster-General with regard to advertisers as the Bill imposes on him with regard to advertising agencies?

Mr. Pitman: I see no objection whatever to the Amendment in line 30—after "interest," to insert "direct or indirect"—which seems to come in a quite different category.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that hon. Members opposite, including the Home Secretary, have been making heavy weather of our Amendments. We are not wedded to any particular form of words but we are concerned with the principles which are involved. The Home Secretary deployed some convincing forensic arguments in the first part of his speech but later seemed to get involved in a little verbal quibble. All we are concerned about is that the Authority shall be a public corporation. It is a so-called Independent Television Authority.
It has been stressed throughout these debates that it will be a public corporation that will operate in the interests of the community, the public service, and the rest. Therefore, we on this side of the Committee are concerned that it should follow those principles which are scrupulously followed in the case of all public corporations which have been set up by various Governments within the last 20 years.
That is to say, that the members of the Authority shall be chosen, first, for their qualifications which they hold for the job that they undertake; that they

shall be absolutely disinterested in respect of the operations of the Authority; that they shall bring to the task which is entrusted to them and shall carry out their responsibilities with complete objective judgment; and that, in regard to all matters of policy, all matters of management and day to day details, they shall be completely objective and completely disinterested. We think that they can only do that if they are personally disinterested and have no financial interest whatever in the programme contract company, in the products which are advertised, or in any other way whatever.
We do not carry the objection nearly so far as the Home Secretary tried to suggest. Nobody suggests that if a member of the Authority happens to have 10, 20 or 100 shares in Unilever he is thereby to be disqualified from being a member of the Authority, because there are the qualifying words in subsection (6):
as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions.…
It is unfair, therefore, to reject the Amendments on the ground that because a person has a financial interest—a small shareholding—in a concern, he is thereby disqualified from being a member of the Authority. None of us suggests that, because there are these qualifying words.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I want to see that I understand the argument correctly. As I understand it, if a person had the smallest number of shares in an advertising agency which happened to be a limited company, he would be right out.

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In the other three categories mentioned in the subsection, the shareholding would have to be such as is prejudicial; that is the second point. The third point that hon. and right hon. Members opposite want is that if the man has a number of shares in a company that advertises with the programme company, that should be a disqualification if the Postmaster-General thinks that that number of shares is prejudicial. That is as I understand it.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has got the point perfectly correctly. It is only a disqualification if a person's holdings are so great that they would definitely


prejudice his judgment in carrying out his responsibilities. That, I think, is perfectly reasonable. That is the intention of the Amendment, and now that the Home Secretary has grasped the intention and obviously supports it, there does not seem to be any reason why he should not accept it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I disagree with the first point because I do not think that 10 or 15 shares matter one way or the other. As to the second category, we are on common ground; it is in the Bill. As to the third, I say that there is a fundamental cleavage between us because if a man happens to hold a large number of shares in an industrial company it should not be regarded as prejudicial. It seems irrelevant to me.

Mr. Davies: It is a matter of degree, but the fact remains—and I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with this—that the duty which is imposed on this Authority is to protect the standards for the community, and there could well be a conflict if a person who is interested in advertising is a member of the Authority, because he should only be concerned with putting on a balanced programme and giving the best service possible to the community. If he is personally interested in a company which is concerned with advertising a product in which he is interested over the network through a programme, he may be influenced in regard to the time which is given to that company and the place on the programme which is allocated as well as in other ways.
He could be influenced, and we do not wish any influence to be exercised on a member of the Authority by his particular interest. As we have already pointed out on this subject, it is only a matter of degree. If the person's interest is so great that it is likely to influence his judgment in serving the community, then it is too great, but if it is too small so to influence him it is not going to put him in that position, and we need not worry. However, it is for the Postmaster-General to make the decision. None of us disputes that.
I do not see why the Home Secretary cannot accept the Amendments we have put down, and I would ask him to reconsider the matter. I am convinced that he does not wish the programmes

which are going to be put on the air to be influenced by members of the Authority because of their personal interest. If he agrees with that, then he can accept these Amendments.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: My reservations on this Bill are well-known, and there are a number of things in the Amendments put down by the Opposition which I shall wish to support, but I am bound to say, on these Amendments, that far from my right hon. and learned Friend making heavy weather of them it is the Opposition which is making the heavy weather. First I want to say that in a recent debate I attributed to the hon. Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer) some words which subsequently I found were not strictly accurate. I have apologised to him privately, and I wish to take this opportunity of doing so publicly.
The Amendments we are discussing are ill-thought out, and the Opposition is trying to create the impression that everybody connected with the advertising profession or industry in any form are unmitigated blackguards and are likely to conduct themselves in such a way, if put in public office, that Parliament must legislate in order to protect the public against them. I do not believe that to be so at all.

Mr. Shackleton: This is the second time during the Committee stage that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has attributed to the Opposition statements which were never made. He does not know apparently what we are seeking. He has already apologised once for an inaccurate statement, and he may well have to apologise a second time.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I think it is the hon. Gentleman who will have to apologise because this is the first time that I have spoken during the Committee stage.

Mr. Shackleton: I withdraw my remark and apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should have said that his remarks made during the consideration of the Guillotine Motion.

Squadron Leader Cooper: If the hon. Member will read the speeches made in the last hour or so he will find that I am not guilty of any exaggeration whatever.


The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in moving this Amendment, referred to the "gravy train," as he euphemistically put it, which the Government are creating under this Bill, but I should like to point out to him that when the Labour Party was in power it created the biggest gravy train of all time in the nationalised industries, and there was never any provision to prevent members of the Labour Party from riding on those gravy trains as first-class passengers.
It seems to me that the Opposition is seeking so to limit the qualifications for members of this Authority that very few people will have the right to serve on it. I do not believe that that was the intention of hon. Members opposite, but one could, for example, imagine that any member of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party would be prohibited from becoming a member of the Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members will allow me, I will develop my argument. It is highly probable that the political parties will seek to advertise on the air. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh‡"] Certainly, there are such things as political broadcasts.

Mr. Mitchison: That is not in this Clause.

Mr. Shackleton: Is that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention, under certain other Amendments?

Squadron Leader Cooper: There are Amendments on the Order Paper which may or may not be accepted. I do not know the intention of the Government, but I would say that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that at some future time political parties may engage in political broadcasts on commercial television.

Mr. Mitchison: It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Tory Party would break the law, but if it keeps to the law it cannot advertise under this Bill.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. and learned Gentleman has really jumped too far ahead. There is no law on this matter at all, and all I said was that it was within the bounds of possibility that there would be political

broadcasts by the main political parties. If that is not advertising then I do not know what is. After all, what is a political broadcast but an attempt by a political party to sell its goods to the country? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get away from that fact.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that the political party would pay for the broadcast, because under this Bill advertising is something which is paid for, and it would only be an advertisement if it were paid for?

Squadron Leader Cooper: I cannot see any possible objection to the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Party buying time on the air if they wanted to, any more than I can see any possible objection to any religious sect doing precisely the same thing.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a little wide of the Amendment, and he should now return to it.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I was simply seeking to demonstrate how wide these Amendments are drawn, and just what is their full implication. I should also like to point out that a national organisation such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which does very fine work, may wish to buy time on the air to appeal for funds. It may be that one of the patrons or vice-presidents of the organisation was a member of the Authority, and would thereby be debarred under this Bill.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, read line 37—"prejudicially."

5.30 p.m.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman always trots out the word "prejudicially" and puts a great deal of emphasis on it. He seems to think that that is all that matters. I want to point out that people do do things from altruistic motives, and that those who may have a large shareholding in an organisation are just as likely to do things properly as somebody who has only a small or no shareholding. I wish the hon. Gentleman would get it out of his head that because people have a considerable shareholding their actions will be governed solely by the consideration


of seeing that their own company is the only one that thrives.
There are hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and others, who represent the Co-operative societies, who have their election expenses paid by the Co-operative societies, and so on. No one would suggest that those hon. Gentlemen come here and put forward the policy of the Co-operative societies; they are actuated by motives far greater than that. What the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is prepared to accept for his own side of the Committee, he should be willing to accept for hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is precisely why we have been suggesting this phrase. It is for the Postmaster-General himself to decide. We do not say that everybody has bad motives if they happen to have a few shares in a company. We say that if they have too many, they should be out. We also say that the Postmaster-General should judge according to this qualifying phrase, which is very important.

Squadron Leader Cooper: We then come back to the question of what is the size of the shareholding which prejudices judgment. If the hon. Gentleman is able to make such a differentiation, he is much more clever than hon. Gentlemen in this Committee give him credit for being.
We may create an Authority in the initial stages which has the full support of both sides of the Committee, and the members appointed to it will certainly have interests of one kind or another. Then subsequently we may suddenly find that one company, which in the initial stages had no desire to advertise or to take part in commercial television, wishes to buy space, and that one of its directors who has a big shareholding in his company, is a member of the Authority. What is to happen then? Is he to retire from the Authority forthwith? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I ask hon. Gentlemen who now say "Yes" to consider the implications. In those circumstances we are likely to have an Authority which is changing its composition almost weekly, and in such conditions its work would be impossible. It may be that that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I shall not say much about the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper). He was not only misinformed but was setting up his own Aunt Sally by implying that we had said that people with business interests were a collection of unmitigated scoundrels. There was nothing in any speech made by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee to justify such an implication. Again I would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the words, in page 2, line 37:
as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge toy him of his functions as member of the Authority, …
It seems to me that most hon. Gentlemen opposite have overlooked those two lines.
It is a hard life, Sir Charles, because here we are trying to help the Government, who have spent a lot of time resisting our Amendment to Clause 1, line 1, where we wanted to change the name of the Authority to the "Commercial Television Authority," but the Government insisted that it must be called the "Independent Television Authority." In view of that, I am certain that the Government would not want the Authority to be dependent in the slightest degree upon the advertising interests, and these Amendments are designed to make quite certain that that will not come about.
If the Government do not like the first two Amendments, the fact remains that I have not heard a great deal said, either by the Assistant Postmaster-General or by the Home Secretary, against the third Amendment. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is not much dividing the two sides of the Committee, my reply is that this Amendment is within the spirit of what both sides want. If the actual form of words does not meet with the wishes of the Government, I should like the Government to suggest another form. It is important that this Authority should be independent, not only in the name which the Government have given it, but also in fact. What we are trying to do here is to make certain that the Authority is independent of the advertising agencies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am wondering whether the hon. Members really under-


stand what is at stake. When we put down these first two Amendments of the group of three I thought there were was some substance in them, despite the charge that they were irresponsible. After all, the Government have said that persons with interests in programme companies shall not sit on the Independent Television Authority. They say equally that people in advertising agencies who have an interest, financial or some other, shall not sit upon the Authority.
That brings me to the third Amendment, about which the Home Secretary was helpful, and which I thought he would accept. This provides that the third category, say the chairman of a big brewing company which spends a quarter of a million pounds a year on advertising, shall not be on the I.T.A. I should have thought that all hon. Members here would agree that the chairman of a large company which was spending a huge sum on advertising—whether pools, dogs, beer, detergents or deodorants—he would be too financially interested to be a member of the Authority.
I thought the Home Secretary, speaking for the Government, accepted that point of view. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman was concerned about was the size of the share. We leave that question to the discretion of the Postmaster-General, who has to decide whether the size of it is such as prejudicially to affect the person in his function as a member of the I.T.A. Why is it wrong to apply the same reasoning to the advertiser, because, in the last analysis, it is he who will provide the money? He is the man who will be the master of the situation, the man with the money. As things now stand, he can be a member of the I.T.A.
We say that is wrong, and I press the Assistant Postmaster-General to accept the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 37, and I ask him at the same time to repudiate the suggestion that political parties are to be allowed to buy time under this Bill. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), who referred to political parties buying time, will take note that I am asking the Assistant Postmaster-General to repudiate the possibility of that coming within the provi-

sions of this Bill. We do not propose to press the Committee to a Division on the Amendment to leave out "such," or the one to insert "whatsoever," but I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to give serious consideration to the Amendment in page 2, line 37, dealing with advertisers.

Mr. Gammans: First, on the point made about political parties and religious bodies buying time, I would refer the Committee to paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, which deals clearly with that matter. If that paragraph remains in the Bill at the end of our debates the buying of time by such parties and bodies will not be allowed.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has put very clearly the difference between the two sides of the Committee on the Amendment to line 37. The upshot of that difference is that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel that anybody who advertises in any programme broadcast by the Authority should be excluded from membership of the Authority. I think that the Opposition would admit at once that if we were to accept that Amendment we should limit our choice very much. We should debar people who have been successful in business, and if we applied the limitation literally there would be a very narrow range of selection left. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] There is no question about it. We should be debarring many people whose judgment and experience and knowledge in these matters would be of great value to the Authority.

Mr. Mitchison: There are two separate points here, one of which arises on the first two Amendments which we shall not press to a Division. In the case of the third Amendment, the point is whether the Postmaster-General should be directed to see whether advertisers have such an interest as prejudicially to affect their discharge of the duty.

Mr. Gammans: If we were to exclude from membership of this Authority anybody whose products might be, or were, advertised on the programmes we should be very much restricted in the type of person we could appoint. I do not think that that is necessary. Anyone who puts forward that point of view cannot have considered sufficiently carefully the relationship between the Authority and the


advertisers. After all, the advertisers will not normally be in contractual relations with the Authority but with the programme contractors.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Authority could be responsible for advertising.

Mr. Gammans: Only in exceptional and very temporary circumstances.
5.45 p.m.
The main bulk of the advertising business will be between advertising agents and programme contractors. Members of the Authority will not create programmes or accept advertisements. That will be done by the programme companies. The Authority will have to decide upon the type of advertising. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about a firm of rich brewers. They will be in no contractual relationship whatsoever with members of the Authority.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the hon. Gentleman not overlooked the duty of the Authority to see that the rules relating to advertisements are complied with? That is not a general question. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the rules themselves, that involves a detailed supervision of the advertisers.

Mr. Gammans: I would agree with that, but my point is that normally there would be no contractual relationship between the Authority and the advertising agencies. Therefore, the belief that, because these men have a particular interest in a product, they would press the advertising of that product by some means or another, is a belief that is entirely unfounded.
I was asked about the powers of the Postmaster-General in this matter. Under

the provisions of Clause 1 (6) he must satisfy himself that any person, that is someone who is about to be appointed,
… will have no such financial or other interest … as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as member of the Authority,…
That will apply to everybody appointed by the Postmaster-General, and not merely to people connected with industry. I believe that the Clause goes far beyond what appears in existing nationalisation Acts, and in it the Committee have every conceivable safeguard that hon. Members could require.
If we went further than that, we should be debarring quite unnecessarily people who, we hope, will be of great value to the Authority, and we should be excluding a great range of knowledge and experience. It seems to me that by the provisions of the Clause the Postmaster-General is not only responsible to Parliament but has certain specifications laid down for him which severely limit the type of person who can be appointed. Unless I am to change the whole nature and type of the persons who can be appointed, I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after "programmes)," to insert:
or in any business, corporate body, partnership or organisation advertising or advertised in any programme broadcast by the Authority."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 265.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[5.47 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blyton, W. R
Cove, W. G.


Adams, Richard
Bowen, E. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)


Albu, A. H.
Bowles, F. G.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Crossman, R. H S


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brockway, A. F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Daines, P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Bacon, Mils Alice
Brown, Thomas (lnce)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Baird, J.
Burks, W. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Butler, Herbert (HacKney, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bence, C. R
Carmichael, J.
Deer, G.


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J


Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Beswick, F.
Chapman, W. D
Donnelly, D, L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Bing, G. H. C
Coldrick, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Colllck, P. H.
Edelman, M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighousa)




Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Finch, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)


Forman, J. C
Mclnnes, j.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MoLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Gaitskell, Rt, Hon. H. T- N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Glanville, james
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sparks, J. A.


Gooch, E G
Manuel, A. C.
Steele, T.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (VauxhaN)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, Sir F.
Stross, Dr. Bamett


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hannan, W.
Morley, R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thornton, E.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Murray, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Nally, W.
Usborne, H. C


Herbison, Miss M.
Nea), Harold (Bolsover)
Viant, S. P.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Warbey, W. N


Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Weitzman, D.


Holmes, Horace
Padley, W. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holt, A. F.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hough-ton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deame Valley)
West, D. G.


Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.
Wigg, George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, F. T.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertitlery)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pryde, D. J.
Wills, E. G.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John
Winterbotton, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt- Hon. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wyatt, W. L.


Keenan, W.
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. F.


Kenyon, C.
Richards, R.



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kinley, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. James Johnson and


Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William
Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Colegate, W. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Jonant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braine, B. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Speltorne)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Banks, Col. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P G T
Crowder, Petre (Ruitlip—North wood)


Barlow, Sir John
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baxter, A. B.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cary, Sir Robert
Donner, Sir P. W.


Birch, Nigel
Channon, H.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Churchill, Rt Hen. Sir Winston
Drayson, G. B.


Black, C. W.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinsttead)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cole, Norman
Duthie, W. S.




Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Redmayne, M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fraser, Hon. Hugn (Stone)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Longden, Gilbert
Rot son-Brown, W-


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas, Sir Jooetyn (Portsmouth, s>
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. O. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roper, Sir Harold


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gammans, L. D.
Lyltelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Russell, R. S.


Garner-Evans, E. H
McAdden, S. J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


George, Rt. Hon Maj G. Lloyd
McCorqiiodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Glover, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Godber, J. B.
Maokesen, Brig. Sir Harry
Scott, R. Donald


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gough, C F H
Maekie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. H.
Maolean, Fitzroy
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maoleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Entield, W.)
Smrthets, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmiltan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Hotncastle)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Speir, R. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speire, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodrdin)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hay, John
Maudling, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Ll.-Comdr. S. L C
Storey, S.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Modliootl, Brig. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Studhofme, H. G.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Monekton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythtnihawe)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radtlyfle, C. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Teeling, W.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Neava, Airey
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolsoii, Nisei (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, LI.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nirid, Basil (Chester)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmoutli)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lvas)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewishant, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John


Hudson, W. R. A- (Hull, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N i
Turner, H. F. L.


Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hutchison, James (Scotsloun)
Orr-Ewtng, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weslotl-super-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Olborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebom)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Perkins, Sir Robert
WaHcer-Smrth, D. C


Jennings, Sir Roland
Peto, Brig. C H. M
Wall, P. H. B.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Woroetter)


Johnton, Howard (Kemptown)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Mist I. (Tyirnnouth)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Water house, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Pitman, I. J.
Welrwood, W.


Kaberry, D.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Kerr, H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewitham, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sundorland, S.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.
Wills, G.


Langford-Holt, J. A
Raiket, Sir Victor
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Leather, E. H. C.
Ramtden, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.
Raynet, Brig. R.
Sir Cedric Drcwe and Mr. Vosper.

Mr. Hobson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, after "shall," to insert:
whenever he acquires any such financial or other interest as aforesaid (whether or not in his opinion that interest is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his said functions) or.
It would be convenient, Sir Charles, if, with this Amendment, we could discuss the following two Amendments in page 2, line 44 and in line 46.

The present position is that the Bill obliges anyone to furnish information about disqualification. The object of these three Amendments is to make certain that a person who has any interest which may disqualify him shall inform the Postmaster-General and, if he fails, the net effect would be that he would be sacked. We have arrived at a stage where it is possible for an advertiser


to be a member of the I.T.A.—indeed, an American advertiser, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Sir L. Plummer) said. It is significant to note that subsection (6) says:
Before appointing a person to be a member of the Authority, the Postmaster-General shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest (and, in particular, no such financial or other interest in any advertising agency or in any business concerned with the manufacture or sale of apparatus for wireless telegraphy.…
It is realised that there have to be safeguards in order that those with vested interests cannot become members of the Authority.
One thing which has transpired, from the two White Papers right up to the Second Reading of the Bill, is that there has been an attempt by vested interests to secure certain powers within commercial television. The Government, quite rightly, placed in the Bill safeguards, but in our opinion those safeguards are not sufficient, and these Amendments are an attempt to tighten them up. We think that the onus should be on the individuals themselves to declare their interests and we state further that the Postmaster-General should be in a position to review these appointments. It could be argued that in this respect the Postmaster-General is a reviewing authority.
I hope, therefore, that the Assistant Postmaster-General will feel able to accept this Amendment. We all know that there are certain interests which we on this side of the Committee are bound to suspect. There are other Amendments on the Order Paper which, if accepted, would set up a monopoly in advertising.
6.0 p.m.
There is a gentleman about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) may have something to say, a Mr. Norman Collins, who has had the temerity to say that he has a monopoly. In circumstances such as those it seems to me that the importance of these Amendments is doubled, that it is a public duty on the part of the Assistant Postmaster-General to accept them. I cannot see that any argument can be raised against them.
If I commit a motoring offence it is no excuse for me to plead ignorance of

the law. If these Amendments are accepted it would be no use for a person appointed to the I.T.A. to say that he did not know. The onus is put upon him and it also gives the Postmaster-General the power to sack such a person within 14 days. We consider that these Amendments are highly desirable and will have the effect of tightening up the Bill.
From statements made during our debates in Committee and on Second Reading—in particular by the Home Secretary—there is no doubt that the Government realise that it is necessary to watch the interests which seek to gain control of this commercial television.

Sir Ian Fraser: To be fair to Mr. Norman Collins, would the hon. Member make clear to what he was referring? What is Mr. Norman Collins said to have claimed about a monopoly?

Mr. Hobson: He did not say there was a monopoly, but that he had a con tract for the London area. He said at a luncheon recently—

Sir I. Fraser: Can the hon. Member substantiate that?

Mr. Hobson: I could. I have not the details with me, but I can furnish them. Of course, we have other examples given during the debates on Second Reading—

Mr. Elliot: This is rather important. I take it that the hon. Member will be in a position to substantiate his statement before the end of the debate and, if possible, before the end of our discussion on this Amendment—

Dr. H. Morgan: All right, we shall do the same every time with you.

Mr. Elliot: That may well be, but at the moment I am discussing a matter with another hon. Member. It is a serious matter and it would be to the advantage of the Committee if that statement could be substantiated before we come to a Division.

Mr. Hobson: This statement has been made before in the House. It was made during the Committee stage—

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: It was inaccurate.

Mr. Hobson: The statement was made at a luncheon—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Where?

Mr. Hobson: All I wish to say further is that we have had to watch these interests. During the Second Reading debate I myself quoted an instance that as a result of the intervention of two gentlemen on the Television Advisory Committee, there were certain recommendations made with regard lo wavelengths, and it is because of these tendencies that we are moving this Amendment.

Mr. Elliot: This is a rather narrower point. I take it that the hon. Member, having made this statement, has offered to substantiate it? I hope he will be in a position to substantiate it within a reasonable time, say within half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour, or before the end of this discussion.

Mr. Hobson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that these statements have been made—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Where?

Mr. Hobson: In this House—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: They were wrong.

Mr. Hobson: Mr. Collins said he had the rights for the purpose of commercial television in London, and because of these statements which have been made we feel it necessary to tighten up the Bill by inserting these Amendments. I hope they will be accepted by the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure that hon. Members opposite who support these Amendments do so with the desire, which is shared by all of us, that we shall have the best possible authority. But I do not think that the case for these Amendments is greatly strengthened by what might be described as rather wild statements, such as the one to which we have just listened. It is that sort of wild, or, shall we say, extravagant, statement which might be blown up by the words of these Amendments if they were actually added to the Bill. I do not think that the danger is as great as is suggested by hon. Members opposite.
Already, there is a great amount of safeguarding in the Bill. We have convinced right hon. and hon. Members opposite that their earlier Amendments

were exaggerated and they dropped Amendments referring to "such" and "whatsoever," feeling that that was going rather far.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Member will no doubt recollect that we are working under a Guillotine. We cannot afford to have a Division on every Amendment, whatever we may think of it.

Mr. Elliot: I am willing to take it that way, but from the clear and eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I understood that he was concentrating rather on the second part of his argument—the second prong of his fork—the one about advertising agents, rather more than the general argument which he had put forward.

Mr. Mitchison: But it is still a fork and not a stiletto.

Mr. Elliot: On the whole, I find a fork less dangerous than a stiletto. If the hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to advance on me with a fork I am less likely to be disquieted than if he advances on me with a stiletto.
This is really a rather narrow point. It is true that a special kind of guard is necessary against people for whom hon. Members opposite feel very great uneasiness. But I think they are pressing this matter too far. I ask them to consider whether what they are seeking to achieve will be completely obviated by the dangers they are introducing with this network of restrictions which they are trying to throw about the matter.
It is true that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. But here we have already safeguards and restrictions which go to an unprecedented length and I think we shall find it difficult, in practice, to administer all these meticulous regulations which we are putting into the Bill. If we tighten up this still further we may destroy the purpose which we all have in mind, which is to get a good Authority. The danger it is hoped to remedy by these Amendments is so slight that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) had to buttress his argument with the suggestion that Mr. Norman Collins had made some statement which, when challenged the hon. Member could only say was a statement


which had already been made in this House.
We are challenging that now. We are now actually discussing the position. If the chief buttress of the hon. Member's argument for the Amendments is a statement about a man who has held office under the Government in an important Department—and whose opinions and statements must be weighed with the greatest care both inside and outside this House—he ought to have prepared himself with chapter and verse before he made it. We are willing to suspend judgment for a short while, but it is not unreasonable to claim that at an early hour the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) should be able to confirm the very damaging and wounding assertion which he has made.

Sir Leslie Plummer: In the debate on the Guillotine Motion last week I mentioned Mr. Norman Collins and asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether Mr. Collins was right in telling both advertisers and applicants for jobs that he would have a monopoly of the London station. I asked if it was true that those remarks were made by Mr. Collins on the occasion of a private lunch held by the Script Writers' Guild and also to a gathering of advertisers and advertising agents, as has been reported. The Assistant Postmaster-General did not reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) is surely entitled to believe that Mr. Collins is getting a monopoly of the London station when the Assistant Postmaster-General will not reply to a direct question like that.
Nobody is suggesting that Mr. Collins is wrong in having a monopoly of the London station. We are merely asking whether he has been given it. It is reported that he has said that he has been given it. I do not know why hon. Members opposite get so angry when one of their friends and associates happily announces that he will have a monopoly of television in London.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Sir L. Plummer: The purpose of the Amendment is clear—

Mr. Elliot: Does the hon. Gentleman refuse to give way?

Sir L. Plummer: It is that the onus shall be on the person who acquires or possesses an interest to disclose it to the Postmaster-General rather than that the responsibility should be on the Postmaster-General to ascertain whether the person is acquiring or possesses an interest. That is reasonable, decent behaviour. A man who puts himself in peril in a situation like this should at once go to the Postmaster-General and disclose the position in which he finds himself.
A lot of heat is being engendered because we suggest that the advertiser has certain responsibilities and should face up to them and that certain limitations should be put on him. A little while ago the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) suggested that we were putting forth the idea that the advertiser is ipso facto a scoundrel. That is ridiculous. Hon. Members opposite should not get so angry when the advertiser is mentioned. They should face the fact that in the newspaper industry certain limitations are placed upon the advertiser. For instance, no advertiser may have any interest in an advertising agency. The Newspaper Society and the Newspaper Proprietors' Association recently announced that they would call for an annual return to make sure that no advertiser had any interest in an advertising agency.
It seems to me that we are entitled to insist on similar conditions being imposed upon the advertiser in this respect. It is nothing new to the advertiser. He is not going round saying, "This is absolutely terrible. A Member of the House of Commons has called me a scoundrel." He feels no more anger about that than when the secretary of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association asks him whether he has any money invested in an advertising agency. Let us not waste too much time on the advertiser; the advertiser is not worrying. Let the Committee accept the Amendment which provides that a person acquiring or possessing an interest must come forward in a perfectly normal manner and declare it to the Postmaster-General.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: Let me first deal with the point about Mr. Norman Collins having stated that he has been given a


monopoly of the London television station. Whether he has made that statement or not, I do not know. I remember an hon. Member opposite referring to this earlier, but I did not reply because I thought it was a wholly irresponsible remark, and if I replied to all such remarks I should do nothing else. No decision has been reached as to who shall have the London station, or about whether it shall be run as a monopoly or whether it shall not be run as a monopoly. It is not a matter to be decided by the Postmaster-General; it will be decided by the Authority.
As to whether or not Mr. Norman Collins will get it or whether he even wants it, I have no means of knowing. I do not even know whether that remark was made. I should like to dissociate myself from any statement that Mr. Collins has been promised or guaranteed a monopoly of the London station.
If we were to accept the Amendment, I do not believe that we should find any responsible person willing to serve on the Authority. We may like the Bill or dislike the Bill, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) said, surely we are all interested in getting the right sort of person on the Authority. If we were to subject persons to this sort of scrutiny or to place this responsibility upon them, I do not believe that anyone would serve on the Authority. I should not, and I do not believe that any hon. Member in the House would, if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Shackleton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which aspect of the Amendment would prevent him from accepting office? Does he object to responsibility being laid upon himself or anyone else to declare his interest?

Mr. Gammons: I shall come to that.
The Committee may like to know where we got the present provisions from. We did not get them from the B.B.C., because all that is provided in the case of the B.B.C. is section 8 (3) of the Charter which says:
A Governor …shall cease to be a Governor … if he shall hold any office or place in which his interests may in the opinion of Our Postmaster-General conflict with any interest of the Corporation.

We got these provisions from the Iron and Steel Act, which says:
Before appointing a person to be a member of the Corporation, the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interests … and any person who is, or whom the Minister proposes to appoint and who has consented to be, a member of the Corporation shall, whenever requested by the Minister so to do, furnish to him such information as the Minister considers necessary for the performance by the Minister of his duties. …
I do not know whether, when that provision was being considered, hon. Members opposite were as anxious about the Corporation under that Act as they were about the Authority in this instance.

Mr. G. Darling: The Iron and Steel Act was designed to keep private interests out of a public service. The Bill is designed to put private interests into what has hitherto been a public service. Surely different considerations should now apply.

Mr. Gammans: I do not think so. The whole object of this body is to control private interests in relation to television. That is the whole point of the Authority. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said, the Amendment would transfer the onus in relation to information about interests from the Postmaster-General to the member of the Authority concerned.
I think the chief objection to this Amendment is in that part of it which is in brackets, which reads:
(whether or not in his opinion that interest is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his said functions)
To repeat, after that, that such a member, on acquiring such an interest—whether or not in his opinion that interest is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge of his duties—must disclose it, is to credit that member with far less intelligence than one would expect in the type of man which we want to have on this Authority. What is more, it is virtually an insult to say to such a man that he must go along to the Postmaster-General every time when, in his opinion, he thinks his interests might affect the discharge of his functions. The effect of such a provision would be that we should not get first-class men on the Authority. Of that, I have no doubt whatever.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely the hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. The point is that, if a man acquires such an interest,


it is not up to him to decide whether or not it will affect prejudicially the discharge of his functions. He must go to the Postmaster-General. In the Bill it is up to the Postmaster-General to find out, but, instead of leaving it to the Postmaster-General to satisfy himself on the matter, we are trying to save the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend some trouble; that is all.

Mr. Gammans: If that is a valid point now, it was equally valid in the case of the Iron and Steel Bill. I am quite sure that, had this been included in the Iron and Steel Bill, we should not have been able to persuade first-class men to accept that responsibility.
I think we are becoming muddled as between the work of the Authority and the work of the programme contractors. The Authority will not be, nor is it likely to be, in a contractual relationship with advertising agents, and I cannot see how this particular difficulty arises. I do not know what virtue the word "declaration" has, or why failure to make a "declaration" should disqualify a man automatically from being a member of the Authority. Whether the word "declaration" is more solemn than the word "statement" I do not know.

Mr. Mitchison: May I tell the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Gammans: No, I cannot give way.
I think the idea of a penal Clause of 14 days in which to provide the information, to which the hon. Gentleman did not really refer, is not a very good one. It would surely create a tremendous feeling of uncertainty on the part of members of the Authority, who would have to declare their interest within 14 days, or else all that they may have done before or subsequently might be ultra vires. Personally, I should not like to be a member of an Authority with such a Clause in the Bill, and, for that reason, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have heard a good many speeches on this Amendment, and we have had a very heavy and pontifical interjection by the right hon. Gentleman for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) who called it extravagant and later on went on to call it narrow. I do not know which he really had in mind.
The position is a very simple one. The Government have laid down that anyone who is a member of an advertising agency shall not be a member of the Independent Television Authority. The Government have also said that no one who is a member of a programme company shall be a member of the I.T.A. The third category of persons who shall not be members of the Authority are persons who are engaged in the business of manufacture. Having appointed members of the I.T.A. who are not in any of these three categories, surely, it is right that, if one of them later comes into one of these three categories, he should disclose that fact?
It is a simple point, and I should have thought that there was nothing insulting about it. The Assistant Postmaster-General has said that we should leave it to the Postmaster-General to find out. All that is done here is to provide that a person who is appointed to the Authority shall be told "If you do become a member of an advertising agency, a programme company or a manufacturing company, you must tell me within 14 days."
That is all, and that is the first obligation upon a person who acquires this new interest. He must disclose it. I am trying to find out what is objectionable in disclosing an interest which is in conflict with a position which one already holds. The hon. Gentleman says it is an insult; I cannot understand the use of that word.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Surely the point which the hon. Gentleman is making applies with regard to the Governors of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. advertise in the "Radio Times" and elsewhere to the amount of £1 million a year, and the Governors do not have to say when they have a small shareholding in a company which advertises with the Corporation. I am not quite clear why the Governors of the I.T.A. should be placed in this position.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the position. Here is a commercial undertaking which is to be run in order to enable certain private companies to make profit. [Interruption.] Certainly, it is a commercial undertaking, intended to operate on a commercial basis. We are


saying that members of the Authority ought not to be in a position of being a party to a contract with the Authority itself. After all, it is for the Postmaster-General to decide whether the interest of a member is such as to prejudice the discharge of his function.
That is not a matter to be left to the individual. In the initial appointment, although the person may have a small interest in any one of these three things, the Postmaster-General can still say that that interest is not large enough to prejudice that person in the discharge of his function. It is he, and not the members of the Authority, who decides that question.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that these words are taken from the Iron and Steel Act, but, surely, that is utterly irrelevant, because the words explaining the three types of person are the words imposed by the hon. Gentleman himself. If he had wanted to take the Iron and Steel Act as an example, one would have thought that he would have taken it in its entirety. He distrusts advertisers, manufacturers of wireless sets and programme companies and provides for their exclusion, but he will not provide that, if a member of the I.T.A. becomes one of those things, he shall be obliged to declare his new interest.
I cannot understand why the Assistant Postmaster-General does not accept the Amendment. When Amendments were moved from his own side of the Committee this afternoon he blandly accepted them. Here is something to safeguard

the Postmaster-General, who is accountable to this House, yet the hon. Gentleman says that the Minister must find out for himself whether or not one of his I.T.A. members has acquired such an interest. Surely it is in the interests of good government and of the House of Commons, as well as of the Postmaster-General himself, that a member of the I.T.A. should disclose the acquisition of an interest which is in conflict with his function as a member of that body.

That is the line we take, and we shall press this group of Amendments to a Division. One Amendment deals with acquisition, the next with declaration to the Postmaster-General, and the last with declaration within 14 days. The hon. Gentleman said that 14 days was a long period of grace, but we must give a person time to see what his position is and to convey the information within—

The Chairman (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Am I guillotined?

The Chairman: Yes.

Hon. Members: Shame.
It being Half-past Six o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 267.

Division No. 105.‡
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Broughto-n, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, G.


Adams, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Thomas (Inee)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt, Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Carmiohael, J.
Edelman, M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphitly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, W- O.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Baird, J.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bence, C. R.
Collick, p. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fernyhough, E.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Beswtck, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crotland, C. A. R.
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, M. M.


Blackburn, F.
CuHen, Mrs. A.
Formaa, J. C-


Blenfcinsop, A.
Daniel, P.
Frawr, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bowen, E. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gailskell, Ri. Hon. H. T. N


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gibson, C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Glanville, James


Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gooch, E. G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P C




Grenfell, Rt. Hen. D. R.
McLeavy, F.
Short, E. W.


Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grimcnd, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddsrsfield, E.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Hare, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Come Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, J. (Durham, SedgefieldQ


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Harnian, W.
May hew, C. P.
Snow, J. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Messer, Sir F.
Sorensen, R. W


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hastings, S.
Mrlchrson, G. R
Sparks, J. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Monstow, W.
Steele, T.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moody, A. S.
Stewart Michael (Fulham E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


iHotman, P.
Moyfo, A.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Holmes, Horace
MuHey, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hoh, A. F.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Houghton, Douglas
Nalry, W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hubbard, T. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolwver)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Timmons, J


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Tommy, F.


Hynd, H. (Acoringion)
Paget, R. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, will T. (Dewsbury)
Usborne, H. C


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F
Viant, s. P.


Jarmer, B.
Panned, Charles
Warbey, W. N


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Pargiter, G. A
Watkins, T. E


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D..


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pearson, A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Oavid (Hartlepool)
Phjmmer, Sir Les'it i
West, D. G.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Popplewell, E.
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Wes houghton*
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wigg, George


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C- A. B.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Willey, F. T.


King, Dr. H. M
Parley, Cmdr. H
Williams, David (Neath)


Kinky, J.
Rmkin, John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lawson, G. M.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, Tnomas (Swinaon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannocfc)
Reid, William (Carrriachie)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwiek)
Rhodes, H.
Willis, E. G.


Lewis, Arthur
Richards, R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Upton, Lt.-Coi. M
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Winterbottom, Riohard (Brightside)


Logan, D. G-
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MaoCoil, J. E.
Ross, William
Wyatt, W. L.


MoGhee, H. G
Royle, C.
Yates, V. F.


MoGovern, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.



Mclnnes, J.
Shawtross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, John (Wallscnd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. James Johnson and Mr. Wilkins




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Braine, B. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Aiport, C. J. M.
Braitnwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Nortnwood)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburm, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Davidson, Viscountess


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Banks, Col. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E, E.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Barber, Anthony
Burden, F. F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Donner, Sir P. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Butter, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Warden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Beaoh, Maj. Hicks
Carr, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcoim


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Channon, H.
Drewe, Sir C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmend)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Biroh, Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Duthie, W. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Cole, Norman
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Black, C. W.
Colegate, W. A.
Erroll, F. J


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Finlay, Graeme


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fisher, Nigel


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)
Fort, R.







Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Llewellyn, D. T
Renton, D. L. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreeambe &'Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roberts, Peter (Healey)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Robson-Brown, W.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Glover, D.
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Godber, J. B.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Shepherd, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harden, J. R. E.
MacmilIan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Homcastle)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marples, A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stevens, G. P.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maude, Angus
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.
Stewart Henderson (Fife E.)


Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Stoddart-Scott Col. M.


Higgs, J. M. C
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Storey, S.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Mellor, Sir John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, A. H. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Summers, G. S.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N
Teeling, W.


Horobin, I. M.
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John


Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N,)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Vane, W. M. F.


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page. R. G.
Vosper, D. F.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Perkins, Sir Robert
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pickthom, K. W. M.
Wall, P. H. B.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worceeter)


Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I. J
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerby, Capt. H B
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wellwood, W.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham. W)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0 L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.
Wills, G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Studbolme and


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Mr. Robert Allan.


Question, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Half-past Six o'Clock.

First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY.)

CLAUSE 2.—(POWERS OF AUTHORITY.)

The Chairman: The Amendments in page 3, lines 27, 32 and 33 in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) are not selected. The first Amendment which I have selected is that in page 3, line 35, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with that Amendment, we discussed the Government Amendments in page 3,


line 35; in page 4, line 5; and in page 4, line 11.

Mr. Hirst: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out paragraph (b).
The words proposed to be left out empower the Authority
to provide and equip studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes;
I do not disguise that this is a very important and, indeed, a fundamental point and its effect on the Authority is profound. It was because I did not feel that it would be fair that this point should be launched on the Committee and on the Government at, so to speak, the last minute that I spent the greater part of my speech on Second Reading in dealing with this matter.
When the second White Paper, on which the Bill was substantially based, was issued I and many of my hon. Friends hoped that the I.T.A. would be restricted in its functions to the very important matter of ensuring proper standards, and a proper code which would inspire the public confidence which we feel that this Authority deserves. Whatever, or however unlikely, the circumstances that might arise, we did not want the Authority to be a trading organisation in itself.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. Is there anything about trading in this Amendment?

Mr. Hirst: I admit that it does not contain the word "trading" but if the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience I shall come to the point.
Our fear is that with the power which the Bill gives to the I.T.A. to build and provide studios and all the other facilities the Authority may wish, in fact, to deal in programmes itself. In other words—though the word is objected to—that the I.T.A. may trade in the business of television. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the word "trade" I will not press it. I am not here to have a row with anyone about one word.
The Government have given an assurance that though, in the ordinary way, they do not desire that the I.T.A. itself should produce programmes they feel that in the Bill they should have reserve powers to enable the Authority to

perform that function if the Government feel it is necessary. My hon. Friends and I do not feel that that necessity need or should arise; and that if it is necessary for programmes to be found because of any temporary lack of ordinary facilities—

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Are we discussing the provision of programmes or, as I thought, the provision of studios?

Mr. Hirst: Presumably the studios are to be there for the purpose of providing programmes in certain circumstances.

Mr. Shackleton: Further to that point of order. I hope we shall be able to debate the Amendment moved by the hon. Member. Under the Guillotine we have exactly one hour, and the hon. Member's general remarks over the whole range of the Bill is wrecking our opportunity for debate.

The Temporary Chairman (Major Anstruther-Gray): It would be better were the hon. Member to keep as closely as he can to his Amendment.

Sir R. Grimston: If one cannot mention programmes it is rather difficult to discuss the necessity to provide studios. With respect, I think that discussion will be difficult, Major Anstruther-Gray, if your Ruling is so tight that we are not able to discuss programmes.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That comes in other Amendments and can be fully discussed then.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Amendment is to leave out paragraph (b) which authorises the Authority
to provide and equip studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes;
The only thing that one can broadcast is a programme.

The Temporary Chairman: Hon. Members' remarks should primarily be directed to the one point, which is the provision and equipment of studios.

Mr. Hirst: I could not agree more. If hon. Members opposite keep interrupting I shall take a very long time. I think it is quite legitimate for me to explain why I want the paragraph removed.
I and my hon. Friends want the paragraph removed because we do not feel that, even as a reserve power, it is necessary to have these studios. They are bound to cost a good deal of money and there will be a natural tendency for the Television Authority to feel that it must make some use of them because, otherwise, the money will be wasted. The danger is that this provision of studios might lead to more extensive operation by the I.T.A. itself, as opposed to the contracting companies, in producing programmes.

Captain Orr: This Amendment is one of a number designed to deal with a very important principle. The underlying principle is whether the new Authority should be a supervisory body, incidentally' owning transmitters and masts, to supervise the work of the programme contractors who will put on the programmes, or whether it should become another B.B.C.
The paragraph we seek to delete says that the Authority shall have power
to provide and equip studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes.
My hon. Friends and I cannot see for what possible purposes the Authority itself should want to equip studios. We fail completely to see what circumstances could possibly arise which would necessitate the Authority's setting up an elaborate fabric of studios.
For what purposes could it possibly require studios? Normally programmes will be put on by the programme contractors. The programme contractor who leases the use of a transmitter from the Authority will obviously set up his own studios from which to put on his programmes. He will provide all his own equipment. There is no need, in normal circumstances, for the Authority itself to own studios.
It has been asked, however, "What about some sorts of programme which the Authority may want to put on that would not necessarily be put on in the normal course by a programme contractor?" In other words, how will the Authority carry out the obligation, in the words of the Clause, of
securing a proper balance in the subject matter of the programmes"?
What, for instance, about news? Will not the Authority need to have studios to be able to provide news? Will it not have

to have equipment to put on news programmes?
Personally, I do not see why that necessity should arise. There are two ways in which one could deal with the news services. One would be for the programme contractor who leases the use of the transmitter to be permitted to put on the news himself. I can see no reason why that should not be done.

Mr. Gordon Walker: With advertisements?

Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentleman has already called the attention of the Committee to what he thought were departures from the Amendment. If I follow his red herring he will accuse me of filibustering.

Mr. Walker: Yes or no?

Captain Orr: Not necessarily at all. There is no reason at all why, if a programme contractor provides a news service, he should necessarily want advertisements.

Mr. G. Darling: Who would pay for it?

Captain Orr: I should find myself in difficulty with the Chair if I developed that point. At a later stage I shall be glad to debate it.
The programme contractor who provides a news service has his own studios and his own equipment already. If, as hon. Members opposite seem to suspect, a programme contractor were partial in some way in the presentation of the news, there could not conceivably be any reason why the Authority should not commission an independent news agency and put that agency in the position of a programme contractor with all its own equipment that it would need to have. There is no reason in the world why, for the presentation of the news, the Authority itself should own studios.
It may be asked, "What about such programmes as "The Week's Good Cause" or educational programmes and other programmes put in to preserve the balance of the programmes as a whole?" If the Authority should decide that a certain amount of time each week should be allocated to educational programmes or to the week's good cause or anything else I can see no reason why the Authority should not put the broadcasting of such a programme upon a programme


contractor, as an obligation, as one of the conditions of his contract. Responsible people who are would-be programme contractors would, I am certain, accept such an obligation, accept from the Authority the duty to produce certain programmes; and the programme contractors would produce them from their own studios with their own equipment.
It may be asked, "What about a sudden emergency?" Suppose that for some reason or another a programme contractor falls down on his job and has his contract cancelled, so that an emergency arises. What is to happen then? What is the Authority to do? It is argued that then the Authority would have to put on programmes itself. That seems to me to be an absurd suggestion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it would mean that the Authority would have to undertake a vast amount of expense, a vast provision of studios. By the time the studios were built and the equipment bought and installed the emergency would be no longer an emergency. An emergency could not possibly be dealt with on that basis. The only way in which the Authority could deal with an emergency of that sort would be by having a sufficient number of studios and a sufficient amount of equipment in advance in case of emergency.
The provision of the studios and equipment would cost a very great deal. This is the best technical information I can get. To put programmes on the air for about six or seven hours daily the minimum requirements would be three studios and three cameras, two outside broadcasting units, a telecine unit and central control rooms, with the engineers and other staff. The capital cost, I estimate, would be between £350,000 and £500,000. To keep all that going, and to keep the engineers available to put on the programmes, would cost about £25,000 or £35,000 a year. Is it seriously contended that the Authority should have to keep all this paraphernalia at such capital expense and at such running costs to deal with an emergency? The equipment would probably have to be replaced at the end of 10 years.

Mr. Chapman: In view of all his submissions why did the hon. and gallant Gentleman vote for only £750,000 annually for the Authority and a loan of £2 million only?

Captain Orr: The hon. Member knows quite well I have dealt with that on other occasions. I am not going to be drawn into discussing that red herring.
There is no need for the Authority to own studios. There is no use in empowering the Authority to own all that equipment only to deal with an emergency. It could not deal with an emergency unless it maintained this large and expensive fabric of studios and broadcasting equipment. If the Authority starts with all these studios and equipment and by laying out all this capital and by undertaking all this cost, what will happen? The Authority will say, "Why have all this and do all this to put on an hour's programme a week? We have all this in case of emergency; let us use it. We ought to use it in the public interest. We have these studios, so we must use them."
Presumably, public funds will have been spent on the studios, and it would be reasonable to argue that in the public interest the studios should not be idle and the equipment should not be left derelict but should be used. In my view and that of my hon. Friends, that would lead to the Authority doing more and more broadcasting itself, until it became something like another B.B.C. and the programme contractors, who should do the broadcasting, were ruled out of it.
That is what hon. Members opposite would like to see. They like these nationalised concerns and they would like the new television to be nationalised. We on this side of the Committee think there should be the greatest possible measure of freedom. That is why we seek to prevent the new Television Authority from being nationalised in advance.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I think I know what prompted my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to put down the Amendment.

Mr. Darling: So do we.

Mr. Gammans: He has been prompted by the fear that the new Authority will tend gradually to become a programme company of its own and, therefore, frustrate the intention of the Bill that programmes shall be provided not by the Authority but by programme contractors.
I cannot accept the Amendment in such rigid terms. It is impossible to do so, for it would place an impossible burden on the Authority by preventing it from owning any studios at all. I do not believe that the Authority will want to use studios as a normal practice, but it is a different thing altogether for us to say that we take power in the Bill to prevent the Authority from ever owning studios. I can foresee circumstances in which it might need studios. My hon. and gallant Friend has given instances—"The Week's Good Cause" and the news. At the moment I cannot say whether the news will be provided by the Authority or by a programme company. If the news is not provided by the Authority, it must at any rate be provided impartially, and we need not worry about that aspect; but I can conceive circumstances in which it will be right for the Authority to own studios, and I am unwilling to prevent that.

Captain Orr: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to give me an idea of the sort of occasion on which the Authority might require studios, or for what use?

Mr. Gammans: I have just given two examples—"The Week's Good Cause" and perhaps the news.
Nevertheless, I can meet what I think is the fear behind the Amendment. That is why I have put down my Amendment. It is being taken with the others, because they all underline the same principle, and if we deal with them together we shall save time for later discussion and possibly for voting, too.
The Committee may wonder what is the difference between "to provide" and
arrange for the provision and equipment of. …
Euphemistically, there is no difference, but there is all the difference in the world when it comes to expressing intention, and the object of the Amendment is to make quite clear the Government's intention about the Authority's activities. We have always said, from the very beginning of the scheme, that programmes should be provided not by the Authority but by the programme contractors. My hon. and gallant Friend may feel that without my Amendment the Clause

would not be sufficiently clear. That is why I have put it on the Order Paper.
Normally, if the Authority wanted studios it would probably rent them.

Mr. Shackleton: From whom?

Mr. Gammans: From anyone who wants to rent them.

Mr. Shackleton: The Authority will have power to rent, but supposing the programme contractors refuse to rent the studios; what happens then? What happens in an emergency?

Mr. Gammans: This is an ordinary transaction. I cannot take power in the Bill to compel a man to rent his house or studio to anybody if he does not want to rent it. I will not take power to say, "You shall rent the studios." That would be quite contrary to our ideas in this country—I hope; although I am not sure whether it is.
I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, not because I differ from him in intention, but simply because I believe that any prohibition which would rule out altogether the Authority's right to own studios would be drawn far too closely and, in the long run, would prove a handicap to the working of the Authority.

Mr. Shackleton: The Committee will agree, I am sure, that we have just listened to one of the most heroic speeches ever delivered. The manner in which the Assistant Postmaster-General stood up to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his other hon. Friends, and then proceeded to give them all they wanted, is characteristic of the Government's attitude and their willingness to sell out to the vested interests in this matter.
The Assistant Postmaster-General knows quite well that the facilities for the Authority to put on programmes in an emergency, or the provisions for it to do so, will be quite useless unless the Authority has studios or access to studios, and I should have thought that even hon. Members who support the introduction of commercial television would agree that, even if the service is commercially run, it is part of the public service. It is intended to provide a vital service to the country.
Nevertheless, we may create a situation in which the Authority, obliged under the Bill to provide balanced programmes, to put out Government notices and to do all sorts of things, is not in a position to do so because the Government have backed down on their original undertaking, made in the House and in another place, to ensure that the fixed facilities are available and owned by the new Independent Television Authority.
This is a scandalous sell out. I used those words before and I use them again because the Government know that at the moment there is grave doubt on the part of those vested interests who want to move into this field as to whether it will be worth their while and whether the level of profits will be high enough.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Then what is the hon. Member worried about?

Mr. Shackleton: I am worried because these vested interests are being given all they want.
They were frightened on two scores. The first was that the Authority would take a certain amount of the programmes—I shall not develop that too far—and that, therefore, they would not be able to make enough money. That fear is being met in certain respects by the companies owning all the studios, so that if the Authority wants studios in a certain area it has to bargain with the companies to get them. The second thing which the vested interests feared were the sanctions, and the sanctions contained in the Bill are valueless unless it is clearly laid down that the Authority will own studios.
The country will note the Assistant Postmaster-General's speech. It shows the steady fall backwards from the apparently high-minded and high-fallutin' system of safeguards about which we heard. The Government are throwing away those safeguards before the Bill has even left the House.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Another trend to be noted as well as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), is the continuing trend towards a monopoly of commercial television. There is not only, as we know, a growing pressure of the commercial interests for a monopoly of commercial television in each of these areas, but also

the fact that the same people and organisations, such as the Popular Television Association, which in the name of freedom and competition began its onslaught on the B.B.C., are now in the forefront of the demand for a commercial monopoly in each of these areas.
The Assistant Postmaster-General said in the House that he had been receiving representations for a commercial monopoly of the London area. That is not enough for the Government and for hon. Members opposite. They want to clear the way for commercial interests, not only by abandoning competition between one commercial interest and another, but by wrecking every possibility of competition from the Independent Television Authority itself.

Captain Orr: Some of us on this side find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member relates this to the Amendment on the Order Paper. You, Major Anstruther-Gray, have ruled that the discussion is very narrow.

Mr. Mayhew: I would point out, Major Anstruther-Gray, that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who spoke in this debate, did say that he had the honour of making plain what was in his mind on this Amendment. It raises the peculiar question of the Independent Television Authority being permitted to run programmes itself, and I feel entitled to answer him on those points. I am making the point—and it is a point that the country must understand—that not only is commercialism being introduced but monopoly as well. Monopoly of responsibility by the Authority is one thing, but private interest monopoly is a different thing altogether in this matter of television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) is right in saying that, for all the splendid display of courage which the Assistant Postmaster-General showed in standing up to the vigorous pressure of his hon. Friends, lie was, in fact, wholly in agreement with the line taken by his hon. Friends. I think that the difference was that his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) was straightforward and said that he did not want the Authority to produce any programme, whereas the Assistant Postmaster-General said


that the Authority could rent studios and make programmes.
To put on the Authority the obligation to rent studios for programmes means that it cannot have any programmes at all at them. No one is going to try to put on a programme unless he knows that he has his studios under his command, and if the Authority is going to be under a state of pressure, and hostility in some cases, towards the programme contractors, how can we put it under an obligation to those same programme contractors before it can put on a programme of its own? That makes no sense whatsoever. The difference between the hon. Member for Shipley and the Government is this: he says that he does not want the Authority to produce any programmes, and the Government say that the Authority may do so.

Sir R. Grimston: The matter which we are now discussing goes to the root of the difference between the two sides of the Committee. As the Bill reads. Clause 1 (b),
to provide and equip studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes;
would enable the I.T.A. to become a second B.B.C. That is what we fear, and that is what hon. Members opposite want to happen.
If it becomes a second B.B.C. it will join up with the B.B.C., which will get back the very totalitarian monopoly that it wants. That is the cleavage between us. I should have preferred, if my hon. Friend had found it possible to accept the Amendment, to delete paragraph (b)altogether, because I think that it would have been just as well if the I.T.A. which, after all, has all the "stations for wireless telegraphy" and really controls the thing, had not had the power to provide and equip studios as well. There is the danger that it will spend a great deal of money on providing and equipping a studio which will very rarely be used.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the £750,000, many of us dislike that, but a great deal of that money will probably be used in commissioning the things that the Authority wants done by the programme companies. That £750,000 was intended for that purpose. It may be used for the provision

of wireless telegraphy stations. It may very well be used partly for that, but very likely it will be largely mopped up by the Authority commercialising parts of the programme which it desires.

Mr. Chapman: I would point out that I mentioned not only £750,000 but the £2 million grant, which the hon. Member also voted for.

Sir R. Grimston: That will probably be largely used for the provision of transmitters. We are getting far from the point that we believe that the existence of paragraph (b) does leave the door open for the I.T.A. to become another B.B.C. The Government, in putting down the Amendment which we are also discussing, have made it quite clear what is their intention. Indeed, they have put words into the Bill giving the I.T.A. power
to arrange for the provision and equipment of
and only, if need be, to provide studios. That is the half-way house. Let us face it; it is a compromise. It goes in a direction which many of us feel is the right direction. My advice to my hon. Friends is that we should accept the compromise, being practical people, on the grounds that the Government are going in the direction that we require.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: At some time between 4th and 29th March, the Government, always given to change its mind, changed it on this point. The White Paper was perfectly clear. It said that the Authority would require adequate finance to pay for its stations, studio equipment and running expenses. The Bill is equally clear. The Bill, in terms, provides that the Authority may provide its studios and studio equipment. On the 29th March, on the Financial Resolution, the Assistant Postmaster-General declared that he did not accept the view that studio equipment would be provided by the Authority.
I should very much like to know what happened. Was this a little birthday present to me? My birthday is on 23rd March, and perhaps it was on that day that these gentlemen in shabby overcoats of whom we have heard so much crept in at the back door of the Post Office and had a word with the Assistant Post-


master-General. The Government have on this matter simply given way to pressure either from inside or outside, if, indeed, there is any difference between the two types of pressure. One way or another, they have said one thing and got this House to approve a policy on one line. They actually put it into a Bill and went so far as to print the Bill and introduce it into the House; and now they have simply given way.
I call it a most remarkable performance from another point of view. Let us look at the matter from the point of view of the Authority. It is told that it may, if need be, equip or own studios. It takes a little time to equip a studio and to run one of one's own. What is the Authority supposed to do? In the view of this hesitating, shuffling Government the Authority is supposed to provide and equip a studio and to use public money in making other payments to other contractors in order to get a little more public money into their hands.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We have been witnessing a very interesting sham fight on the other side of the Committee which has been played out very nicely. It is a good example too of the process that has been going on right through the Bill—we have almost seen it happening before our eyes tonights—of the way in which a group of interested back benchers bring pressure to bear on the Government and the Government give way to it all along the line in the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) let the cat out of the bag, because it is now quite clear what he and his lot want, and what they will get in the end, because the Government give way to this group all the time. The hon. and gallant Member might want the new Authority to pay programme contractors public money for putting on the programmes that he mentioned—the news, and so on. That would be more public money going to these companies. But in fact the hon. and gallant Member does not want public money in this respect. Therefore, what he wants is the alternative, that we should get all our news and good causes by the grace of some firm or other that sells deodorants or something like that, because there will be no other way of paying for them.

Captain Orr: Is it not conceivable that a programme contractor putting on his programme would not necessarily require that every programme should be sponsored or paid for by an advertiser? Would he not make his rates comprehensively to cover a lot of programmes which he would put on to increase the prestige of his station, so that he would attract business of the right sort?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope the Home Secretary notices that his hon. and gallant Friend is now openly speaking of sponsoring as being possible under the Amendment, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take an opportunity to repudiate his hon. and gallant Friend.
The hon. and gallant Member always says that a programme contractor would "not necessarily" have to take advertisements. Of course, it is not necessary to do so. There might be a tiny little programme somewhere or other that can be put in. But in general, and the hon. and gallant Member explained how expensive all this was, if programmes are put on, they have to be paid for, and, under the system and the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member supports, they would have to be paid for by advertisers. That would mean that we should get all our news and all the rest under this system because an advertiser was paying for it—and, of course, he would have to pay fairly heavily.

Mr. Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman says that under the Amendment the news would have to be paid for by advertisers. That is not so. The Amendment's intention is that the Authority should not own studios. But programmes such as, for instance, the news would come out of the subvention payment of £750,000, of which we have heard so much.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was perhaps misled into talking about the hon. and gallant Member's speech rather than the exact Amendment, but his intentions are clear.
This is also a case of a great Government retreat before this pressure. A lot of show was put on of resisting the Amendment, but those who put it forward have been given 95 per cent, of what they wanted. In effect, they have been given all that they wanted. Originally the Government, as my hon.


and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, in the prospectus that they put out to attract or to lull people like Lord Halifax, made it quite clear that in the White Paper the Government's intention was that the Authority should have studios. Paragraph 16 says so, in so many words, and so does the Bill.
Now, the Government are retreating, but much more cunningly than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The Government are not openly saying what they would like to happen. What they say is that the Authority should "arrange for" studios. "Arrange for" is a very clever expression. With whom will the Authority make these arrangements? Presumably, it must make them with the programme contractors. I understand from what the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the Authority will be paying the programme contractors for studios which it wants to use. That is what the hon. Gentleman imagines will happen.
There are not a lot of studios all over (he country in the way that there are houses there is only a small number of studios. Presumably the Authority will have to pay the programme contractors for the studios that it needs for the special programmes which it might want to put on, paying public money for it. I understand from the hon. Gentleman's failure to dissent that that is what he has in mind. Therefore, the Authority will be tied up with the programme contractors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked, what happens if the contractors will not rent these studios to the Authority? There are no other studios that can be rented. Therefore, the apparent intention of the Clause, as amended by the hon. Gentleman, would be completely frustrated.
We were not suggesting that there should be something in the Clause to say that the Authority "shall" rent studios. We were saying that it ought to be given power to be able to rent studios if it decides that it needs them. The Authority is not, in fact, being given facilities to rent the studios that it needs.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that I am not accepting my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I quite agree. That is the pretence.

Mr. Gammans: It is a fact.

Mr. Gordon Walker: What the hon. Gentleman is providing for is that normally the Authority should arrange for the provision of studios; not that it should have them, but should arrange for them. How is the Authority to arrange for them without renting them? How can it be done?

Mr. Gammans: The Authority can own them if it wants to,

Mr. Gordon Walker: The purpose of the Amendment is that normally the Authority shall arrange for the studios, and that only in great need shall it own them. Normally it will rent them; that is what "arrange" means. How else can it arrange for these studios but by renting them?
What happens if the programme companies, who, presumably, share the hon. and gallant Member's views, say that they do not want to rent these studios and that they want to put on the news in the way that the hon. and gallant Member said they ought to do? Is there any provision under the Bill by which the Authority—this great public independent Authority—can do these things, short of suddenly having to build a whole lot of studios at short notice and, presumably, at greater Government expense?
The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot), in an earlier contribution—when he was present—said that in our Amendments we were trying to draw the net too tight. It is quite clear, however, that the Assistant Postmaster-General and his hon. Friends behind him, whom he is pretending to resist, are making the mesh so large and loose that all the sharks will be let in. That is the real purpose of this play, which has been put on for our benefit this evening, of this sham right by people who want 100 per cent, and pretend they are not content when they get 99 per cent.
I think, too, that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—

Hon. Members: He is not here.

Mr. Osborne: He has gone to make a television broadcast.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Where is the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove?

Sir R. Grimston: I can tell the right hon. Member. He has gone away to make a broadcast, I think, for the B.B.C.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If only he had waited a little while, he would have been able to do so under the auspices of Bovril or Guinness, or something, under the terms of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scotch whisky."] Yes, it might be Scotch whisky. If any commodity is to be advertised, I suppose that is one of the best.
The general tendency of the movement towards monopoly that was stressed by my hon. Friend is also an important point, because it shows up how very hypocritical the Government are. They always talk about breaking monopoly. In fact, they are creating the worst sort of monopoly that could exist—an uncontrolled, private-profit monopoly, and apparently one which will have a monopoly even against the Authority. That is the intention, I understand, of the Amendment.

Captain Orr: The right hon. Member is taking up the cry of his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. May-hew) about a monopoly. If there is more than one programme contractor, there cannot be a monopoly.

Mr. Chapman: There will not be more than one.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am glad to know that what I forecast last week has happened: namely that the operation of the Guillotine on an Amendment moved from this side of the

Committee has given the Opposition every opportunity to debate this Amendment.

It is too late now to develop a case against the Amendment, but I should have been grateful if the Government could have looked at this question again. If one examines carefully the words which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has on the Order Paper, one sees that they leave the Clause in very much the same position as it is today.

Mr. Hirst: Although I am disappointed with the answer I got from the Government, I have to recognise—
It being half past Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Half-past Seven o'Clock.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 35, after "to "to insert:
arrange for the provision and equipment of or, if need be, themselves to."—[Mr. Gammans.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 233.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Remnant, Hon. P


Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Ridsdale, J. E.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts Peter (Heeley)


Glover, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Robson Brown, W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
MeCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Harden, J. R. E.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway,
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Shepherd, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Patriok (Lanark)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Spearman, A. C. M.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maude, Angus
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Storey, S.


Holt, A. F.
Molson, A. H. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Moore, Sir Thomas
Studholme, H. G.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Summers, G. S.


Horobin, I. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Neave, Airey
Teeling, W.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Sir- Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Sir lan Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Odey, G. W.
Tilney, John


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hylton-Foster, H. B H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Turner, H. F. L.


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, R. H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N)
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Osborne, C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Vosper, D F.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Perkins, sir Robert
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Peyton. J. W. W.
Wall, P. H. B.


Kaberry, D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M
Wellwood, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Price, Henry (Lewisham, w
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Leather, E H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Profumo J. D
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, Gerald


Lindsay, Martin
Ramsden, J. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, Sir H N.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Rees-Davies, W. R
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Adams, Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Daines, P.


Albu, A. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Deer, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benson, G.
Chapman, W. D
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Beswick, F.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove, W. G
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bowles, F. G.
Crossman, R. H. S
Fernyhough, E.

The Chairman: The next Amendment which, I gather, is to be moved is the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to Clause 2, page 4, line 1, to leave out "not." I think it would be convenient to take five others with it, namely, to page 4, line 1, leave out from "Authority," to second "the," in line 3, and insert "and." also in his name. Then the one to page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to "for," in line 21 in the name of the same right hon. Member. Then the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) to page 4, line

13, leave out "lack, or." Then the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South to page 4, line 21, leave out from "programmes," to "make," in line 23, and the one to page 4, line 26, at the end to insert a proviso, also in his name.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out "not."
There are really two groups of Amendments here. The purpose of the first group, and the more radical, is to eliminate programme contractors altogether from the Bill. The purpose of the second group is to allow for a future


elimination of programme contractors by affirmative Resolution of the House. That second group of Amendments would give power to this Government and, what is perhaps more relevant, to a future Government, to eliminate programme contractors from the entire set-up now before us.
These Amendments put into technical form the point of great importance made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in the Second Reading debate, and which I should quote because it is of great importance.

Mr. Ian Harvey: As the right hon. Gentleman is quoting his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), could he tell us where the right hon. Gentleman is?

Mr. Gordon Walker: He is at Strasbourg, representing this House.
The point made by my right hon. Friend is translated into legal terms in these Amendments. I would ask for the attention of the few hon. Gentlemen opposite because this is an important point in relation to these Amendments. My right hon. Friend said that we
must reserve the right to modify or, indeed, abandon the entire scheme, and this may well include the complete elimination of the proposals for advertising "—
Then he went on to say, and this is the implication of these Amendments and I hope will be listened to outside the House of Commons as well as in this Committee—
the programme contractors … may well find in due course that they are put out of business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1475.]
These Amendments, taken together, would remove what we regard as the worst feature of the Bill, although even then it would still have one or two bad features. What will no doubt appeal to the Home Secretary is that it would remove a great deal of distrust and alarm in the more respectable ranks of his own party. It would certainly please right hon. and noble Friends of his like Lord Halifax, whom I would regard as a respectable member of his party.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: He will not look at television.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: He would certainly be pleased by these Amendments, and I am sure he is a member of the Conservative Party whose importance to the Home Secretary is greater than that of the hon. Gentleman.
Our Amendments would not, of course, stop advertising altogether because, although the Assistant Postmaster-General did not seem to realise it, there is provision under this Bill for the Authority to take advertisements, and to be paid for them, under Clause 4. So that amount of advertising would remain even if these Amendments were carried, which would be a slight crumb of comfort to the interested gentleman on the back benches opposite.
However, it would stop what we dislike very much, advertisements with the sole purpose of profit-making by companies who, by definition and by their very nature, would have no sense of the public service at all, and who would do their utmost to build themselves up into monopolies as quickly and as fast as they could—though no doubt they would make a great effort to start in a respectable way as did companies in the United States under sponsored television.
But like those companies, they would rapidly degenerate into the same kind of standard because they would be driven by the same process as were those companies in the United States. All these wonderful ideas and safeguards, about which we are hearing now, were all produced in the United States when commercial television started and it will degenerate here as it did there for the same reason.
These Amendments are really the test of the sincerity of the Government and they meet what are the alleged aims of the Government set out in the original White Paper. Those alleged aims are not to bring in the commercial interests. They are to break the monopoly without bringing in sponsorship. In a phrase—to get competition without sponsorship. That is what the Government said in the original White Paper, which has been so sadly departed from in so many important ways.
If these Amendments were carried the Authority might well be called the Independent Television Authority, and if it


alone was responsible for these broadcasts then we would get both the things the Government want: we would get a breach of the monopoly through the two public service authorities in charge of broadcasting and we would avoid sponsorship, which the Government said they wanted to avoid. We would avoid commercialisation of broadcasting. But the Independent Television Authority, plus the programme contractors, will get us to what the Government say they do not want, though we are getting more and more suspicious of their intentions as they move more and more Amendments and retreat more and more from their original position; because the I.T.A. plus the programme contractors is a form of sponsorship, as is becoming more and more apparent.
Therefore, these Amendments are a test of the sincerity of the Government of whether they are really more for breaking a monopoly or more for commercialising television. I hope, therefore, that we shall find some friends on the opposite side of the Committee, because here is the principle which divides those Conservatives who want commercialised television and those other many Conservatives, represented by people like Lord Halifax, who abominate it and do not want it. That is the issue which divides hon. Gentlemen opposite and it is the one raised in these Amendments.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise to support the Amendment because I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said, and I think that this is really the acid test of the Government's sincerity. You have indicated, Sir Charles, that we are taking three or four Amendments together and I hope that when the Home Secretary deals with them he will address his mind in particular to the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to page 4, line 26, to insert a proviso. It is on that Amendment that I want to make two or three observations which I earnestly hope will appeal to the Home Secretary.
That Amendment is designed to secure that if at some future time the Government's intention breaks down, it should be open to the Postmaster-General, with

the approval of the Treasury, to make arrangements which would enable the Authority to take over the responsibilities of the programme companies. I am prepared to assume for the purpose of this argument what I would otherwise deny—that commercial television will work. On that point, I entertain very great doubts.
My own view is that, even assuming the maximum good will and integrity on the part of the programme contractors, with the conditions that are imposed in the Bill and if the safeguards to which the Government pay lip service are all observed, it will be impossible for them to undertake the responsibility of introducing a workable alternative commercial television service. Inevitably, they will find that either they have to disregard the safeguards in the Bill or that they will not be able to make a profit. Sooner or later, that will dawn upon any body or company or group of individuals which undertakes the responsibility of becoming programme contractors
In all sincerity I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that possibility. In that event, and if the Government are determined to have an alternative system of television, it surely must be right that the Authority should be able to step in to supersede the activities of programme contractors and thus undertake the responsibility of providing the alternative programme. Whatever the Government may say about the other Amendments in this series, it seems in logical necessity and in the public interest that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. This Amendment alone will meet the contingency which not only my hon. and right hon. Friends envisage, but which is envisaged by such a serious newspaper as the "Economist" which, in its columns, has indicated the same point of view as I have just mentioned.
In saying that I do not diminish in any way my support of the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick. It would be much better and healthier if this whole series of Amendments were accepted by the Government or carried by the Committee. All the proposed deletions in Clause 2 should be made, because if we are to have an alternative television service it would be far more satisfactory to let the Authority from the start be responsible


for introducing it and carrying it into effect. We should then be able to eliminate advertising altogether and to place the responsibility on the Authority for producing the programmes and the alternative service.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: How would it be financed?

Mr. Fletcher: There are alternative methods. Time is short and the method of financing it does not arise on this Amendment but, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is a crucial Amendment and a test of the Government's sincerity. If what they really want is an alternative service free from any possibility of abuse and of a lowering of public standards of taste and values, this is the way to do it. For these reasons I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Sir R. Grimston: As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just said, this series of Amendments is of course crucial, because the Amendments seek to upset the whole intention of the Bill Which is that there should be programme companies operating an alternative service under the control of I.T.A. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite want another State-run broadcasting corporation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the whole thesis of their philosophy. They want as much State direction as they possibly can.

Mr. Mayhew: rose—

Sir R. Grimston: The hon. Member for "Lime Grove" must wait one minute.
I am not quarrelling with hon. Members opposite. I am merely saying that they want a State monopoly of broadcasting, and they are using every possible Amendment to ensure that the Bill is made into an instrument to achieve that, rather than what we want it to do.

Mr. Mayhew: We on this side of the Committee are very much criticised when we suggest that hon. Members opposite launch attacks on the B.B.C. and that they and the Government are hostile to the B.B.C. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his remark that the B.B.C. is State-run and State-owned. He should either withdraw it or in future accept that his attitude to the B.B.C. is hostile.

Sir R. Grimston: The hon. Member really must not try to pervert what I said. I said that the B.B.C. is a State monopoly, and it is.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member said "State-run."

Sir R. Grimston: I said that the B.B.C. is a State monopoly, and it is, if words mean anything at all. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from it. Hon. Members will find that the Beveridge Committee Report devotes chapters to State monopoly in broadcasting with reference to the B.B.C, and it is no use the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) trying to put words in my mouth which I did not use. Let us have it clearly on the record. It is agreed on both sides of the Committee that at the moment the B.B.C. is a State monopoly. Hon. Members opposite like that system and want to get back to it. We have introduced a Bill to bring about an element of competition, which is all that we can do in the present situation with regard to wavelengths. Hon. Members opposite are seeking every possible opportunity to try to frustrate that intention. This series of Amendments is another example of their attempt. We need not be mealy-mouthed about it; there is that difference between both sides of the Committee and what we are arguing the whole time—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: When I was in Canada last year the one thing they begged of me everywhere—every class and every type of person—was, "Keep off commercial television."

Sir R. Grimston: I do not know who the hon. Member met in Canada, but if he met other Socialists—

Mr. Follick: No.

Sir R. Grimston: —that is probably what they did tell him.
We have discussed this subject ad nauseam, but I want to say a word or two about the Amendment we are discussing in connection with this series, the Amendment proposed to page 4, line 13 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot). As the Bill stands, subsection (2, b) of Clause 2 provides that the Authority is empowered to
provide programmes or parts of programmes so far as may be necessary by reason of any


lack, or temporary lack, of suitable persons able and willing to become.
We want to make quite clear that it is the intention that the Authority should not get into the habit of providing programmes through a lack because we do not think a lack should be permitted to continue. But it should have power to provide programmes if there is a temporary lack. Therefore, we seek to remove the words "lack, or" so that the subsection will read:
by reason of any temporary lack.
I am being perfectly frank with hon. Members opposite. This is another safeguard to prevent the Authority, by any side-wind becoming another B.B.C. That is the intention of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend and it is in line with the whole object of the Bill and the whole philosophy of this side of the Committee. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept his Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The former Assistant Postmaster-General really ought to know better. When he was referring to the B.B.C. and talking about a State-run monopoly—

Mr. G. Darling: He said "State-directed."

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member also said "State-directed," but he did use the term "State-run monopoly." He knows it is not State-run, but is independent.

Sir R. Grimston: As the hon. Member is on that point again, may I remind him that we agreed on both sides of the Committee that the B.B.C. is a State monopoly?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member has said "State-directed."

Sir R. Grimston: If I said "State-run monopoly" I should perhaps have said "run by a monopoly chosen by the State." I want to get agreement on this; I do not want to quibble about words. What I want to get established is that the B.B.C. is a State monopoly and no one can deny that. We are all agreed on that.

Mr. Davies: Quite clearly, the hon. Member is trying to wriggle out of what he said. There is no question of what

he said. It is in HANSARD. He really ought to know better as to the organisation and manner in which the B.B.C. is run at present.

Sir R. Grimston: Will the hon. Member agree that the B.B.C. is a State monopoly?

Mr. Davies: The B.B.C. is a monopoly and the Governors of the B.B.C. are appointed by Order in Council of Her Majesty. There is no question of that, but it is not operated as a State monopoly. It is operated as an independent authority in precisely the same way as the right hon. and learned Gentleman hopes the Independent Television Authority will operate. I do not think the hon. Member will suggest that the I.T.A. is to be a State-run monopoly, yet we have had the Home Secretary frequently telling us that it will be as independent as and similar to the B.B.C.
I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) because we are trying to keep our speeches very short this evening in view of the operation of the Guillotine. In my view, the Amendments now before the Committee crystallise the difference between the Government benches, particularly the back benches, and the Opposition. The hon. Member said that he did not want the Authority to make a habit of producing programmes. On this side of the Committee we argue, I think quite rightly, that if we leave it to the programme contracting companies to produce the programmes and give the main authority to them to put on the service we shall have competitive television, admittedly but we shall not have an alternative service.
The danger will be that we shall not have two services, one from the B.B.C. and one from the I.T.A., which are complementary and supplementary, but the B.B.C. service on one hand and, on the other hand, the competitive service of the I.T.A., provided by the programme companies, which quite definitely will lead to a deterioration of the services.
There will be no balance of the programmes. There is to be no planning of the programmes because the programme contractors, as both sides of the Committee admit, will put on programmes which will command the largest mass audience with a view to getting the


greatest number of viewers to see and hear about the products they are trying to sell. The more power given to the Authority to put on programmes, the greater chance there is of having a balanced programme than a competitive, deteriorating service. That is the difference between the two sides of the Committee.
The purpose of these Amendments is to give more authority to the Authority itself and to give more power and responsibility to it in regard to putting on programmes. Only in that way shall we be able to protect the service and to provide an alternative service for the community. The more power and authority given to the programme contractors the worse the service will be and the greater danger there is of deterioration in the service of the B.B.C.
It is quite clear in our view that from the point of view of giving the greatest coverage to the alternative service and at the same time providing the best service the more the Authority does the better. There is the question of available equipment. There will be competition for apparatus, and so forth, and, if we have a large number of programme contractors having their own studios and seeking their own equipment there will be competition for it and a struggle for it. I notice that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) admits that.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I support the idea. There will be more camera channels and much more equipment in the studios and that provides the basic home market on which we are likely to build a thriving export trade.

Mr. Davies: But there is a limit to the amount of equipment available. It is expensive and there will be duplicating and overlapping. The hon. Member knows that full well; maybe he will benefit. The more that is sold the more he will benefit because we know of his personal interest in the matter.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Member define that a little more closely? He said that I have a personal interest. He may get a tip from the hon. Member for "Lime Grove" sitting behind him.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member used to have an interest. Maybe he has dispensed with it now.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No.

Mr. Davies: Oh, yes.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member has accused me of having personal interest. Both sides have agreed that there should be an alternative programme; therefore, any person with a vague interest in television receivers has no financial interest in whether the second programme comes from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. That will not make the slightest difference. I wonder whether the hon. Member will now withdraw. I never had, or have had, any interest.

Mr. Davies: That may well be, but the fact remains that the more competition there is for equipment and the more equipment is in demand and sold, the better for those people interested in the production and disposal of equipment—I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of anything—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that I am associated with a company that makes equipment for transmitting and camera equipment. That is absolutely and fundamentally untrue and I hope he will withdraw it. He said equipment for stations. I have no interest and I have had no interest. That is part of a smear campaign by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was carried on by "The Times" for two years as part of a campaign to uphold the monopoly.

Mr. Davies: I regret that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) is so sensitive about this matter.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: All hon. Members are sensitive about their honour and integrity.

Mr. Davies: I was not accusing the hon. Gentleman of anything. I was making the statement that the more equipment sold the better for people concerned with the manufacture of it. Why the hon. Member should be so sensitive about the manufacture of this equipment I do not understand. If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my point I shall be grateful, as we axe endeavouring to keep our speeches short.
What I was about to say was that there was not only a shortage of equipment, but also a shortage of technicians. If we canalise programmes through the independent Authority rather than distribute them over a large number of programme contractors there would be less of a scramble between the B.B.C., the Authority and the programme contractors for the use of the services of the available technicians.
After all, the Authority will be receiving taxpayers' money and it is far better that it should provide the best service possible for the community. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are agreed that this public corporation, the I.T.A., should be provided with a loan out of taxpayers' money and an annual income. The more authority and responsibility it has the better. It is far better that the Authority itself should produce programmes than that they should be produced by programme contractors whose only interest is in producing programmes in order to make money out of them.

Mr. Oir-Ewing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows quite well that a programme contractor does not produce a programme for any other reason than to make a profit for the advertiser for whom he is putting on the programme. That is the whole purpose of programme contracting companies. We suggest that it would be better if the Authority had greater responsibility for putting on programmes.

Mr. Philip Bell: I should have thought that one thing was clear about these proposals, that no sane person could possibly maintain that we should have the B.B.C. doing television and another authority doing exactly the same under another name. That would be a most wasteful arrangement, unless we were getting some fonm of competition.

Mr. G. Darling: Why wasteful?

Mr. Bell: Because there would be double staffs and it could be done under one arrangement. There would be no future for that arrangement; it would be one corporation against another and the competition would be permanently fixed into two sorts of schools.
I should have thought that all hon. Members would agree that that sort of competition was not the sort for which it was worth while setting up a whole organisation. Although hon. Members opposite do not think so, there may be a good deal to be said and a great deal of criticism to be voiced about what is called—according to the state of one's liver—"commercial," "sponsored" or "free" television.

Mr. Darling: Free of what?

Mr. Bell: Free in the sense that any ordinary person can use it. The words are used according to the state of one's bile.
At any rate, there is this to be said, that if what one might like to call commercial television gets going no one knows where it will stop. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know how many transmitters there will be or what competition will come from the Continent. They do not know how popular it will be and that is what they are afraid of.
The time of this Parliament is running out. How nervous hon. Gentlemen opposite are. They cannot even give one little commercial television station a chance to become popular with the public. If I had my way I would have started with one transmitter in one town and impose no regulations or restrictions upon it at all. I would have given it a free run, and if it had taken advantage of that position I would have broken it. That is the way to test how people will use their freedom.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have given the station a monopoly in that town?

Mr. Bell: Yes, because it was one transmitter. But the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that we are at the beginning of an invention. It does not seem possible for hon. Gentlemen opposite to think further than the last municipal election or the next one. This business is starting with a few transmitters, but it has great possibilities.
By these Amendments it is intended to stop any possibility of a future of any sort for television. They wish to put up two associations who will get all their money through Government control. That is considered to be progress by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to be a good


thing to do. They wish to have two static corporations and allow them to look after television for ever.
8.15 p.m.
The obvious answer is that however much they like to keep back the sea they cannot do it by just saying, "Go away sea." The Pas de Calais will remain and there will be other stations on the Continent. These Amendments by which it is proposed to make the whole thing static are out of touch with reality. Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want it or not they will get television from the Continent if they do not make provision for it in this country. The Amendments are not constructive. They are designed to cut the throat of the Bill and hon. Members on this side of the Committee will resist them.
It is no real test between restricted and free competition when we get grandmotherly or auntie-like provided competition. That will not test anything. No one would know if the Authority was a good or bad experiment if we left it to such an emasculated corporation suddenly to take on the job which the B.B.C. can do more efficiently. For these reasons the Amendments must be opposed. They are not designed to improve the Bill, but to wreck it.

Mr. Wedgwood Bain: The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) referred to Lord Halifax in such a way as to lead people to believe that the noble Lord was insane, a matter which no doubt will be taken up at a Conservative party private meeting as the best way to deal with that sort of thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman also gave us the impression that the B.B.C. does not stand up to any examination at all. We are given a wonderful idea of a free commercial set-up leading us to new developments. The hon. and learned Member spoke of the B.B.C. as if it was a sort of grandmother which was never really capable of making any progress at all. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten that the first television programme in the world was broadcast by the B.B.C., that organisation which started with little stations like 2 LO—

Mr. Philip Bell: Where has it got to?

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Member asks where it has got to. There have

been delays in television since the war because of the shortage of equipment and the restriction on capital development—a sort of national self-discipline which no one who has enjoyed other benefits since the war would regret. In any case, that is another argument.
I am merely saying that the B.B.C., starting from a very small beginning, developed into an enormous broadcasting outfit, including regional programmes, overseas programmes in 50 or 60 languages, and 40 or 50 news bulletins in the 24 hours. It has done more to raise the prestige of this country than any other single thing that I can think of. During the war the Resistance movements thought of the B.B.C. as the voice of truth.
If anyone goes to a radio station in the United States, as I have done, and says that he once worked for the B.B.C, he immediately gets a friendly welcome, because the name of the B.B.C. stands high. To suggest that this is just a State-run monopoly on the lines of say the State tobacco monopoly in Italy is to denigrate the B.B.C. and do less than justice to the organisation which we now have.
My hon. Friends are getting very disappointed about the reaction of the Home Secretary to Amendments of this sort. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Home Secretary. He is a man of immense sincerity. If I were passing a Committee room and heard a shot and found inside the Home Secretary with a smoking revolver in his hand and a dead woman at his feet, my first reaction would be that he had attempted to prevent a suicide and failed. That is the measure of my faith in him. At the same time, we put to him Amendments of this sort which maintain, as this one does, the principle of competition, and we find him resisting them.
It is worth while considering for a moment why he is unable to accept our Amendments. It is simply that he believes—I do not doubt his sincerity—that competition is desirable, and he has talked himself into believing, or has been talked into believing, that we can only obtain competition by commercial means. He says that he cannot accept Amendments of the type we put to him because they would not work commercially. He says that he is not ashamed to say that


because he believes that commercial television is the only effective competitive television which we can obtain.
Other hon. Members have talked themselves into believing that private interest is equivalent to national interest so far as television is concerned. It is a dangerous state of affairs. It is not true that in broadcasting the private interest of programme sponsors is the same as the national interest. If I were to declare an interest it would be in the programmes which are to come from commercial television and the fact that public money is to be put into commercial television, and that, as far as one knows, there will not be adequate safeguards of the interests of the public in regard to their requirements for good programmes.
Various Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), have said that our Amendments divide hon. Members opposite between those who are interested in the commercial aspect and those who believe in a competitive system. It is not really the purpose of the Amendments to divide hon. Members opposite; the purpose is to provide a basis for co-operation between both sides of the Committee.
The Postmaster-General, in another place, in accordance with the tradition of that place which always decries anything which savours of party politics, brought tears to the eyes of archbishops and others by saying that it would be a great pity if party politics ever entered into television. If our Amendments were accepted, they would form the basis of a workable agreement by means of which there would be competition but no commercial television. I do not know whether I can convince my hon. Friends about this. This is my private view. I hope they will not misunderstand me if I express it in an open and friendly way in this Chamber.
I believe that many hon. Members opposite share my view about monopoly, think it would be better to have competition and do not like the commercial principle. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) said the other day that I had been half-converted to Conservatism. Little does he know that he is a victim of Fabian recommendations to the Beveridge Committee.

Mr. Hobson: The right hon. Gentleman is meeting himself coming back.

Mr. Benn: The matter of the right hon. Gentleman meeting himself coming back is not really in order on this Amendment.
The fact that our Amendments, which would provide a basis for agreement between the two sides of the House, are being turned down throughout the Committee stage is proof of the fact that the Government have not really made an effort to get the Bill through on an agreed basis.
I have often said that I should like to see the B.B.C. having to face a little competition. However, the trouble about the B.B.C. or a similar monopoly is that its serious programmes will not be contested by any competitive organisation. We have dons discussing all sorts of dangerous ideas from their rooms in Oxford or Cambridge and other provincial universities. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is allowed to go on the air. It is this type of serious programme which constitutes a danger in monopoly.
Monopoly of entertainment is not a menace. Nobody is perverted by too much entertainment if it is within the bounds of decency. What is dangerous is a programme like "Taking Stock," when people are allowed to discuss matters of current controversy on the air. The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) believes that the Jazz Club is a part of Communist infiltration of British society, but that view is not general.
We have to consider how we are to provide really effective competition to the serious output of the B.B.C. It is because serious programmes do not sell toothpaste and laxatives that we shall not get serious programmes on a commercial station. Some programmes in the United States which are financed by trade unions deal with serious matters, but, in general, if one wants to sell a foundation cream for women one does not put on the air my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East. It is my contention that the new Authority will not provide competition where the B.B.C. needs it most. It is for that reason that we propose that the Authority should be allowed to do more broadcasts of that nature.


The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) said that a temporary lack of a certain type of programme, but not a permanent lack, should justify the Authority in giving other programmes. However, a succession of temporary lacks constitutes a permanent lack. We believe that there will be a serious lack of the competition which the B.B.C. needs.
8.30 p.m.
I am not saying that the Home Secretary should accept all our Amendments, for some may be contradictory, but I wish he would give the Committee an assurance to look at the matter again. There are many persons on both sides of the Committee and in another place who would be willing to have another look at the whole matter in an attempt to get an agreement about effective competition, without advertising. I do assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the sort of competition which I propose, and which my hon. Friends would wish to see, would be much more effective than what we should get from commercial television. It will stick to Ted Ray, Danny Kaye and all the other entertainers of this country and America, because that is the stuff that sells the goods.
I wrote to Radio Luxembourg the other day and asked them to send me some information which they provide for the people wanting to sponsor programmes. Quoting from memory, what they said was that they urged their advertisers not to look upon the programme as an unpleasant necessity to sell goods, but to try to make their programmes worth something in themselves. That is really the whole point of advertising—to shift the goods—

Mr. Elliot: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a State radio in America would have competed with Senator McCarthy better than the sponsored programme of the Columbia Broadcasting Company?

Mr. Benn: Although the right hon. Gentleman is a man gifted with great imagination, I hope that he will not ask me to go through all the mental gymnastics of imagining how it would be now if, 30 years ago, American broadcasting had started off in a different way. We cannot conceive of 30 years' development culminating in a great State repudiation of Senator McCarthy.
We shall not get anything like genuine variety. To use an Americanism, if one "spins the dial" in the morning one goes from one "soap opera" to another and, in the evening, one gets cowboy shows, and a succession of disc jockeys. The thing that we are worried about is that we are not going to get real variety, but mass entertainment programmes. Of course, we shall see how matters develop, but, where things go wrong, we want the Authority to have the opportunity to put them right.
The Home Secretary, at this stage, has the opportunity of bringing together all the good will that exists in all parties, and then of trying to get a measure of competition. Then, we shall give it all the encouragement we can, and I am sure it will meet with a very great response from all my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: It should be made clear that we on this side of the Committee are not in any way opposed to the B.B.C, though the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has accused us of being anti-B.B.C. What we have said all through our debates, and particularly on this Clause, is that we wish to leave the British Broadcasting Corporation as it is, in receipt of its licence revenue, and to set up alongside it another organisation of a slightly different character which might stimulate it, and which, at the same time, will give a freedom of choice to listeners and a freedom of employment to those people who want to work for it.
It would be most undesirable if it were to go out from this Chamber that one side of the Committee was for the B.B.C. and the other side was against it. The B.B.C. deserves all the credit that is given to it, and we say that it should be left as it is.

Mr. Mayhew: Of course, the hon. Gentleman says that, but, a few minutes ago, one of his hon. Friends was criticising the B.B.C, and, since the B.B.C. started a television service, there has been an attitude of growing hostility towards the B.B.C, not only on the part of back benchers opposite, but also on the part of the Government itself.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who does so much good work for the B.B.C, which we all appre-


ciate, should seek to break up opinion on this matter in this House in this way and to divide the parties here into pro- and anti-B.B.C. I did not make that interjection, but some hon. Member made it—

Mr. Philip Bell: There is no doubt about it; I made it. If criticising the B.B.C. is thought to be against the B.B.C., then I am against the B.B.C. Nothing is sacred from my criticism.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have given the B.B.C. 20 years' start with television; it has actually got the best waveband for television, and that is a pretty good start. If this Bill goes through in its present form, although it is essentially a compromise, it might do something to improve the B.B.C.
These Amendments are wrecking Amendments. They will change the entire form of the Bill. We believe that the programme companies, in fact, will add more diversity to the programmes. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is, I think, in agreement with us, and he wants to see more competition in the creation of programmes. This is one way of doing it. There may be many other ways. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite in all sincerity to believe that we are sincere in wanting to decentralise and to give other people a chance of creating programmes.

Mr. Mitchison: I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman, who has said that this was a compromise. Would he tell us between what and what is it a compromise?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was here during our earlier debates, or he would realise that this is a compromise between a complete, sponsored commercial television system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes. I have always been opposed to a sponsored television system. I have written letters to "The Times" on the subject, but unfortunately they have not been published. I think they might have shot "The Times'" fox. The leader writers of that newspaper have habitually stated that Conservative back benchers were out to commercialise the whole of broadcasting. This is untrue. That was never the intention of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee, who wished

to leave the B.B.C. as it is, and to introduce some competition.
This is a compromise between out-and- out commercial television as seen in America, and a State broadcasting sys tem which we, alone among the demo cracies, have—

Mr. Gordon Walker: A compromise between the hon. Member's views and those of the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am very glad that I am coupled with so famous a man. Hon. Gentlemen are wrong in thinking that the programme companies, which would be done away with if their Amendment was accepted, will be always out to make money. They will at first be out to make a reputation. That is essentially true of any company in business. Some of their programmes will make money, of course; otherwise they would not be able to pay their staff. Other programmes will be of a sustaining nature. I see hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads at that. They will find that what I say is true wherever they study broadcasting in the world.
The suggestion has been made that people will work for the programme companies with their eye on the profit motive. I suggest in all humility that that is an attempt to drag the creative arts too far into the political arena. I do not believe that artists only work for money. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh again at that point. An awful lot of people—writers, painters, film makers, broadcasters—work for the joy of doing a good job in their own particular medium. I have worked for 10 years in the B.B.C. and I have come away with the very distinct impression that there are many people in this community of ours—and all praise to them—who work for the sheer joy of being creative in their own medium.
I believe that the programme contractors will attract a proportion of these people. It is significant that Mr. Norman Collins, whose name was mentioned earlier, has had several hundred applications from people who are anxious to work in this new television experiment. Many of them come from the B.B.C. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the whole of this nation is only out in a mad scramble to make money. The truth is


that many artistic people want to work for the sake of producing something.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment. By creating these programme companies we have met the point which was brought out forcefully in the Beveridge Report, that it is important to decentralise. Every piece of evidence which came before that Committee showed the need to decentralise this monopoly. We are doing it in two ways. We have allowed the B.B.C. to remain, and we are allowing programme companies to come in. We have produced decentralisation and devolution. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that I must now intervene. I wanted to let everyone speak who wished, but if I do not now make my remarks with great celerity I shall not leave any time for any hon. or right hon. Member opposite to abuse me for what I have said.
As I think everyone in the Committee will realise, I cannot accept either of the variations—and this time I make no complaint about any difference between them—that are proposed by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened this discussion, said the purpose of the Opposition was either to eradicate the programme companies now or to forge the machinery by which they could be eradicated rapidly at a future date I must reject both the proposal for immediate murder and the suggestion of a conspiracy to murder at a future time.
I think it is important that we should take the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman fairly and frankly argued his case. His case on this Amendment was not for the elimination of advertising, but for the use of advertising directly by a public corporation. That is an interesting new approach. I am glad that the Opposition have been able to contemplate that as an approach—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry. I did not mean to give that impression. I merely said that for technical reasons that would be the effect of the Amendment. I am not advocating the Authority having to advertise.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not deliberately make niggling points. If he assures me that it was not the intention to give

a run to that approach I shall not take the matter further. It would be a new approach, and perhaps we may hear more of it later, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) develops still further his views on competition.
We have made abundantly clear from the beginning our belief that to make the fullest possible use of the resources, initiative and flexibility of private enterprise there must be a system of programme contractors together with the supervision which we think is right and will be effective. That is the difference between us. On this point the two sides of the Committee disagree. The Opposition desire that there should be a second B.B.C. We think that there should be this machinery by which private enterprise will be given its chance, and that advertising will make its contribution.
I think one ought to remember the practical difficulty that the scheme which we have put forward, of which the programme companies are an integral part, only makes the calls on Government finance which are set out in the Bill, and which at various stages right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said are too small. It would require a recasting of the financial scheme and a much greater contribution from the State to meet the initial cost and, it may be, the revenue costs during the earlier period which the proposal implicit in these Amendments would involve.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us on what calculation he bases his remarks?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not the figures by me, although I have had various figures put before me. I do not think that in the discussion of an Amendment of this sort it would be right to call on my memory. I have no doubt that the point I am making is a true and substantial one.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) put his argument on a slightly different basis. The right hon. Member for Smethwick dangled in front of me the attractive bait of the Members of my own party whom I should please. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East dangled quite a different bait. He said that it would prevent the


programme contractors from failing to make profits and also the breakdown of the safeguards.
The mantle of Elijah is proverbially a garment difficult to don, and hon. Gentlemen who seek to don it in this Committee very often find that they assume a likeness to Cassandra. I would remind them that Cassandra, one of the other better known exponents of prophecy, had a very sticky end indeed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: She was right.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Exactly, but the end was sticky, and this attempt to imitate Cassandra, which I was dealing with, is really, in my view, not very impressive unless there are premises on which the prophesy is based.
I cannot see, especially in view of the powerful speeches we have had at other stages about the people who are obviously prepared to spend large sums on advertising, why the hon. Gentleman should have put forward this gloomy prophesy. Equally, I cannot see where he gets his conclusion that if the programme contractors are to be successful they will have to break the rules of supervision which we have put down. I think that we have, after a great deal of examination, found a via mediawhich will provide the opportunity for giving play to the forces I have described, and which will be accompanied by supervision that will make itself felt.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick mentioned the purpose of the other Amendment, but I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that he did not develop it at any length. None of those behind him has done so either.
I refer to the Amendment for abolishing the programme companies by Statutry Instrument. It has not formed a great part of our discussion, and, therefore, I shall deal with it quite shortly.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I did say that it would be more relevant to give powers to a future Government than to the present one.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman did, but I think he will agree with me that to accept an Amendment of that kind would not only show a complete lack of faith in the set-up in which I have expressed my own belief but

would also be singularly discouraging to those who will come into the set-up we propose. I shall, therefore, advise the Committee against accepting that Amendment, too.
I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Bristol, Soutfa-East into Ms charming speech in favour of inter-party co-operation, because there are so many implications, and he would have to shed so many further loyalties—personal, political, and ideological—before he could attain his desideratum that I think it would occupy more time than we can spend on this Amendment tonight.
We believe that the Independent Television Authority must operate through programme companies, for the reason which I have given. As I said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend has repeated, we envisage the Authority coming in only in the case of the temporary lack of a programme from the programme companies. I am quite ready to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), which makes that point quite clear, because it is consistent with what we have said and what we desire.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In that event would the right hon. and learned Gentleman put into the Bill a definition of "temporary," because, otherwise, we shall not know what the Clause, as amended, means?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think there are the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman sees, but he is quite right to make the point and I will certainly consider it. I cannot give any undertaking, but I will certainly consider that point.
I said I would provide time for hon. Members to have a few moments in which to abuse me for what I have said, and I hope the Committee will not take it as discourtesy if, having stated our views on the Amendment, I now sit down.

Mr. Joseph Reevesy: I have listened to the Home Secretary with great interest. Knowing him as I do, I had hoped that he would be more forthcoming this evening. I cannot help but feel that he is very uncomfortable when he is defending this Bill.
There is not the slightest doubt that the proposals which are included in our Amendments will in no way lessen the importance of the Authority. Indeed, they will give the Authority a good deal more control over programmes than they can ever have under the Bill as it stands, and they will provide the public with all the safeguards to which they are entitled.
It is proposed to establish the Authority, but the Authority will be dependent upon a variety of programme companies who will have to provide the fare which it is to put out to the public. It is a strange situation which has arisen in this country. After leading the world in radio and television, we are now starting where America is leaving off. We are beginning a system which is becoming more and more discredited throughout the whole of the United States.
One has only to read the American newspapers to realise how significant this is. If hon. Members talk to Americans and Canadians they will be told, "Whatever you do in Great Britain, never start a radio or television system like that which we have been running." Some time ago I was in Chicago, and I was speaking to the radio board of the university there which runs a series of programmes. Educational institutions and public institutions that want to provide programmes either on the radio or on television have nowadays to license their own stations for this purpose because they cannot get any time worth talking about on the commercial radio and television systems.
When I visited America, some years ago, in connection with my work on the Beveridge Committee, I wrote these significant words in a report:
Television in America, if anything, is worse than radio because of the high cost of the programmes. Comedians perform behind displays of goods they are expected to sell and their gags must have reference to the article paying their fee. Demonstrations in methods of using publicised goods monopolise programmes, and even news commentators slide from news items into praise of an article or service.
It has become almost a disgrace to run this great commercial system in America.

Only yesterday, in the "New York Times," I read an extract from a report which had been given about the commercial system in America. This is what the American journal "Variety" has to say:
Perhaps for the first time in a decade not a single symphony orchestra has succeeded in snaring a bank-roller this season.
The bank-roller is the chap who pays. in other words, this is the kind of fare for which the advertiser is not prepared to pay in any circumstances. So far as America is concerned, the system goes from bad to worse. Now America has to do something about it. The result is that all over the States today, public corporations are asking for and receiving licences to go on the air to provide television programmes of an educational and cultural character.
I have figures here which are really astonishing. Even in Washington they have established non-commercial television stations, and an organisation known as Educational Television is issuing a weekly film at cost price to the noncommercial stations. The non-commercial stations in Houston, Los Angeles, Madison and East Lancing are joining together so that they can put over alternative programmes of an educational and cultural character to those which are being sponsored by the great networks. It is a most interesting story. This is because America has adopted the system that we are now proposing.
We do not want that system here. We want the Authority to be responsible to the public and to have supervision of the programmes. We want programmes which we shall never get under this system. Look at the kind of programmes which are to be expected in these circum stances—
It being Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That 'not' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 232.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Deedes, W. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. E. McA


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Donner, Sir P. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barber, Anthony
Burden, F. F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Drayson, G. B.


Baxter, A. B.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Drewe, Sir C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Erroll, F. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Birch, Nigel
Colegate, W. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fort, R.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bowen, E. R.
Crouch, R. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Bayd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J A
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)




Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Remnant, Hon. P


Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Ridsdale, J. E.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts Peter (Heeley)


Glover, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Robson Brown, W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
MeCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Harden, J. R. E.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway,
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Shepherd, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Patriok (Lanark)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Spearman, A. C. M.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maude, Angus
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Storey, S.


Holt, A. F.
Molson, A. H. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Moore, Sir Thomas
Studholme, H. G.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Summers, G. S.


Horobin, I. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Neave, Airey
Teeling, W.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Sir- Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Sir lan Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Odey, G. W.
Tilney, John


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hylton-Foster, H. B H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Turner, H. F. L.


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, R. H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N)
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Osborne, C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Vosper, D F.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Perkins, sir Robert
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Peyton. J. W. W.
Wall, P. H. B.


Kaberry, D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M
Wellwood, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Price, Henry (Lewisham, w
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Leather, E H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Profumo J. D
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, Gerald


Lindsay, Martin
Ramsden, J. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, Sir H N.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Rees-Davies, W. R
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Adams, Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Daines, P.


Albu, A. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Deer, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benson, G.
Chapman, W. D
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Beswick, F.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove, W. G
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bowles, F. G.
Crossman, R. H. S
Fernyhough, E.




Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.


Follick, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Forman, J. C.
MacCoH, J. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MoGhee, H. G.
Short, E. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MoGovern, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Molnnes, J.
Silver man, Sydney (Nelson)


Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Glanville, James
McLeavy, F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Gooch, E. G.
Mainwaring, W H.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallelieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvill (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hamilton, W W
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Thornton, E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Murray, J. D.
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.
Tomney, F.


Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holmes, Horace
Oldfield, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Hubbard, T. F.
Oswald, T.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W (Dearne Valley)
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, Charles
West, D. G.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Janner, B.
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wigg, George


Jeger, George (Goole)
Popp [...]well, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Porter, G.
Willey, F. T.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, J. T (Westhoughton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas(Don V'll'y)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
pursey, Cmdr. H
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Rankin, John
Willis, E. G.


Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William (Camiachie)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Kinley, J
Rhodes, H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lawson, G. M.
Richards, R.
Yates, V. F.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts Albert (Normanton)



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth S: Panoras, N)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr, James Johnson and


Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William
Mr. John Taylor.


Question, "That 'to' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Monekton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimond, J.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Neave, Airey


Banks, Col. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Rir Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hay, John
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heath, Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
HM, Mrs. E. (Wynthenshawe)
Osborne, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, R. G.


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Perkins, Sir Robert


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Holt, A. F.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bowen, E. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pitman, I. J.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Ll.-Col. W. H.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Profumo, J. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Billiard, D. G.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hyde, Ll.-Col. H. M.
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, D. L. M.


Care, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, Sir Roland
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robson-Brown, W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cole, Norman
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Colegate, W. A.
Kaberry, D.
Russell, R. S.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerr, H. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, R. Donald


Crouch, R. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Mitler, Cmdr. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Davidson, Viscountess
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Deedes, W. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Digby, s. Wingfield
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Donadson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M


Donner, Sir P. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Douglas-Hamilton, lord Malcolm
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, G. P.


Drewe, Sir C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Steward, w. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Storey, S.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mackeson, Brig Sir Harry
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKibbm, A. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Erroll, F. J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, G. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hon lain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macmillon, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Fort, Ft.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tnorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Gammans, L. D.
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glover, D.
Maude, Angus
Turner, H. F. L.


Godber, J. B.
Maudling, R.
Turton, R. H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mellor, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gower, H. R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Vosper, D. F.




Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hen. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wellwood, W.
WilIs, G.


Wall, P. H. B.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Major Conant and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Adams, Richard
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Albu, A. H.
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Baird, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Holman, p.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Holmes, Horace
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Aocrington)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Albert '(Normanton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Royle, C.


Buffer, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Carmichael, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H.
Keenan, W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Cropland, C. A. R.
Kinley, J.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, G. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskics, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Deer, G
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Dodds, N. N.
Mclnnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wall-send)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Usborne, H. C.


Follick, M.
Messer, Sir F.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Gooch, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W-


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, F. T.


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvile (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hall, John T. (Gatethead, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan;


Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, w. T. (Hammersmith, S.)




Willis, E. G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Yates, V. F.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Wyatt, W. L.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Nine o'Clock.

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 3, to leave out from beginning, to "but," and insert:

who, under contracts with the Authority, have, in consideration of payments to the Authority and subject to the provisions of this Act, the right and the duty to provide programmes or parts of programmes to be broadcast toy the Authority, which may include Advertisements."—[Mr. Gammans.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 254: Noes, 228.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[9.10 pan


Alport, C. J. M.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
ENiot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambton Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Erroll, F. J.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Assheton, Rt Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.


Baldodk, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lindsay, Martin


Banks, Col. C.
Fort, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Baxter, A. B.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Mai. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Beach, Mat. Hicks
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, Sir Jocclyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Garner-Evans, E. H
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Glover, D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Birch, Nigel
Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Gomme-Dunean, Col. A
MeCerquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Black, C. W.
Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bottom, Sir A. C
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, A. J.


Bowen, E. R.
Grimond, J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Braine, B. R.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)
Harm, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Hoeneastle)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Air Cars, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bullard, D. G.
Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bullus, Wine Commander E. E.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marples, A. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maudling, R.


Carr, Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Gary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John


(Shannon, H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Holt, A. F.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Cote, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Colegate, W. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Neave, Airey


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemout, E.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Chariot Ian (Hendon, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, C.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Page, R. G.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Orewe, Sir C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pitman, I. J.


Duthie, W. S.
Kerr, H. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.




Powell, J. Enoch
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Pries, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Tilney, John


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Profumo, J. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Spearman, A. C. M.
Turton, R. H.


Ramsden, J. E.
Speir, R. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Redmayne, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vosper, D. F.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stevens, G. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Renton, D. L. M.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife E.)
Wall, P. H. B.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stoddart-Scott Col. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Storey, S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Robson~Brown, W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Roper, Sir Harold
Studholme, H. G.
Wellwood, W.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Russell, R. S.
Suteliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E t


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Teeling, W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shepherd, William
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Adams, Richard
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Albu, A. Hi.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Alten, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gaiteskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McGovern, J


Awbery, S. S.
Gibson, C. W.
Mclnnes, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Baird, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, F.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brlgg)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beswick, F
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Bint, G. H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Blackburn, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Come Valley)
Mason, Roy


Blenkinsop, A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Blyton, W. R.
Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, Sir F.


Bowles, F. G.
Kantian, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R-


Brackway, A. F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. O. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mort, D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.


Carmichael, J.
Hobson C R.
Murray, J. D.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Nally, W.


Champion, A. J
Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D
Houghton, Douglas
Oldfield, W. H.


Clunie, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles


Clifton, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Popplewetl, E.


Dairies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Porter, G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Deer, G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Prootor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Donnelly, D. L.
Keenan, W.
Rankin, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kenyan, C
Reeves, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kinley, J.
Rhodes, H.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, G. M.
Richards, R.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernybough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William


Follick, M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.




Shaekleton, E. A. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shinwell, Rt, Hon. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Short, E. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins. w. A.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpelh)
Willey, F. T.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, David (Neath)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Thornton, E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Willis, E. G.


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Viant, S. P.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sparks, J. A.
Warbey, W. N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)



Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
West, D. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert:
shall
(a) themselves provide in the programmes all items of current news, and.
The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear. It is to ensure that the broadcasting of news shall be the sole responsibility of the Independent Television Authority, and shall not be permitted either to the programme contractors or the advertisers. This is the first chance we have had tonight to discuss anything but the technicalities of this Bill, and our first opportunity to consider the impact which commercial television will have on the minds of viewers. It will be necessary for me to make some comparisons between what will result from the Bill as it stands and the current practice of newspapers in this country. I do that because this is the only comparison we can make at this stage.
Broadly speaking, I think the whole Committee will agree that what is utterly vital, if we are to retain an intelligent and educated democracy in this country, is that news shall be untrammelled and shall be free. It is, of course, the claim of the Press of this country that in being free it undertakes a duty to its readers, which it fulfils, of seeing that the news is not contaminated from any source. That is to say, the news which appears in the newspapers today is not influenced by the advertiser and, in fact, is not influenced by anything except the judgment of the editor and sub-editors. There are, of course, exceptions to that. Proprietors have been known to influence the course of events in their newspapers and on occasion have permitted their zeal for politics to allow opinions to creep

into the news columns, but those are temporary aberrations with which I am sure the proprietors are not particularly concerned.
Apart from that—and it is not a very major consideration at this moment—the advertiser is not permitted to influence or control the news columns of the newspaper. Indeed, so rigid is this rule that the proprietors of newspapers see to it that advertisers are not permitted even to use advertisements which simulate news. If they do in the limited fashion in which that is permitted—known in the trade as "reader advertisement"—they have to carry a clear headline indicating that it is an advertisement, or at the end to carry the letters "ADVT."

Sir William Darling: In small letters.

Sir L. Plummer: In small letters, but large enough to show that the matter is not an editorial.
All the blandishments of the advertisers to obtain permission from the owners or managers of the newspapers to enable them to produce what looks like news features but which, in fact, are advertisements have failed. That is to the credit of the newspapers because, temporarily, they could have made quite a lot of money out of selling news-space to advertisers. But they did not do so because, in the long run, the whole thing would recoil on them. The reader would begin to lose confidence in the newspaper. That is something which the newspapers know does not pay.
Here, if the Bill remains in its present form, we shall get the reverse of that situation. We shall get news, not free and untrammelled, but news controlled and directed—and at times distorted—


and put out for one purpose only, to sell the advertiser's goods. The experts who are over here at the moment, training the luckless advertising agents who know nothing about television advertising into the ways of the United States, are saying that the essential thing to remember is that the programme must create the right kind of climate for the "commercial," that is to say that at all times the programme must be subordinate to the interests of the "commercial." In fact, the programme has to be designed for the purpose of selling the goods.
What will happen when the commercial advertiser, who under this Bill is to be permitted at some time or other to broadcast news—either directly through a roving camera or by means of a newsreel—comes to consider, with his advertising agent and programme contractor, the form of presentation. First, he will not present news in the form in which it is presented by the B.B.C. There will not be the flat, unmodulated calm voice, for the advertiser will not attract listeners from the B.B.C. if he merely copies the B.B.C. "Me too-ism" will not do it.
What we shall have in this country, what the advertiser will want, is not the calm objective voice telling about a thing as it happened, but the excited, strident voice—the voice which is familiar to the American advertising agents now in this country—using the technique familiar to the American advertising agent, and putting over news in a way in which he is accustomed to having the news put over. We shall be faced with the Walter Winch ells and the Westbrook Peglers—the people who do not read the news but comment on it, who distort the news and who insert into the news comment which ought to be kept out. In that way objectivity goes completely.
Consider the position if an hon. Gentleman in this House was responsible for a cigarette half-hour appearing two or three times a week, or every day, on commercial television. Suppose he wanted a newsreel or a "spot" in the programme for news production. Would he organise a programme announcing or discussing whether cigarette smoking has any direct relation to cancer of the lung? Of course not. He would not produce a programme which did not create a climate for the "commercial."
Will any patent medicine advertiser in the same position produce a programme discussing the effect of the announcement by the Minister of Health that certain patent medicines—a great number—are to be struck off the list, either because they are worthless or because they are too expensive? That does not create a climate for the "commercial." What is to happen where a man wants a happy and contented and jolly audience? Does he doctor the news? Does he fake the news?
I see an hon. Gentleman opposite is smiling. But it was not so very long ago that advertising agents in this country—one in particular—wrote to the newspapers of this country saying, "If you forecast danger and destruction and war next year I shall not recommend your newspaper for inclusion in my client's programme, because you cannot sell goods to worried people." That is what a partner in a well-known advertising agency was saying. That is the sort of pressure he was trying to put on the newspapers.
9.30 p.m.
The nature of the advertiser does not change. He is emboldened and encouraged by the success of this form of presentation in the United States. There are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have said that we do not do things that way in Britain and that the American way of doing things will not succeed in this country. I wish it were true, but the example of the motion picture industry of Hollywood, and the success that it has had in this country, show that one can alter tastes, acclimatise people's ears to different tongues and get people to accept an entirely different standard of values, if only one can persist for a sufficiently long period.
The success of the American film in this country makes it clear that, given time, the American style of commercial television programme will succeed. The American television experts over here know no other way of presenting programmes and news than the way it is done in the United States.
Over the last seven years the B.B.C. has succeeded in producing a news service which is really first-class. I have heard many people say, "I never believe what I read in the newspapers," but I


have not heard people say, "I do not believe what I hear on the B.B.C." The B.B.C has a reputation second to none in the world for telling the truth and reporting the news as the news takes place. Our people are unprotected from the virus which may be introduced into television in this country. It is like a man living on an island where the common cold has never been known, and then he comes to this country and catches a cold right away.
The population of this country, having learnt by experience that all they hear on the radio or the television news broadcasts is absolutely true, are in no condition to resist the blandishments of an advertiser who is in a position to distort news for his own purpose in order to create the climate for an advertisement. The Bill means that millions of listeners who have been conditioned to the truth will be put in a position in which they will be unable to distinguish between the truth and the distortion, stridency and exaggeration which the advertiser must use if he is to compete with the B.B.C.
For these reasons, and as I am certain that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, if not all of them, are concerned to maintain in this country the principle that news is sacred and comment free, I hope that I and my hon. Friends will be supported tonight in attempting to ensure that those who will be responsible for the dissemination of news by commercial television will, in turn, be responsible to Parliament, and will be people who are issuing programmes entirely disinterestedly in the interests of the nation and not in the interests of some nostrum, and will take care that we do not descend to the vulgarity which passes for news on American television.

Mr. Elliot: We might have supported the Amendment if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) in advocating it. I could not have believed that an hon. Member would try to commend the Amendment to the Committee on the basis that the B.B.C. had so hypnotised the people that they took everything which they heard on the B.B.C. as gospel. If that were right, it would be high time that we provided an alternative source of information for them.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that the B.B.C. fakes the news? Is he seriously saying that the people of this country should not believe that the B.B.C. news is authentic?

Mr. Elliot: Every time he speaks, the hon. Member puts his foot further into it. He is now bringing out this deifying of the B.B.C., which is one of the greatest dangers to the B.B.C. There is not much difficulty in answering the question, but, as I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his speech, I beg him not to interrupt me now. I am giving the answer to his question.
I say that the B.B.C., like all human institutions, is fallible, and is not to be taken as absolute gospel—the Ten Commandments brought down from Mount Sinai. Whenever we wish to ascertain the truth in all the most difficult relationships in human life, and particularly in the courts, where we have two advocates, one on one side and one on the other, nobody suggests that they are faking the truth; it is because we get different opinions that we get at where the truth really lies. That is the only way in which our determinations are arrived at.
If one uses a scientific instrument, one does not just take one reading, but one reads above and below and comes to a determination between the two. Similarly, a man shooting at a target does not attempt to hit it with the first shot, but overshoots and undershoots and eventually makes the correct shot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Really, the ignorance of hon. Members opposite is startling. Do they deny it? Does anybody with any technical knowledge on the other side suggest that that is not the way in which the determinations of gunners are arrived at.

Mr. Mayhew: As an ex-gunner, may I say that one does not exaggerate in one direction and then exaggerate in the other. One goes for the truth first. I think that is the whole object of gunnery.

Mr. Elliot: Speaking also as an ex-gunner, I say that the object of the gunner is to lay the bracket and close the bracket. The theory of the gunner in laying the bracket is that which is adopted in every delicate relationship in the whole world, and the suggestion that one can with a first shot hit the middle of the target is an utterly unscientific conception in any


form of human relations. It is not borne out in the law courts, and everybody knows it.
The dangerous attitude is that which has been exposed by the hon. Member who commended this Amendment to us—this idea that news can be presented as the absolute truth and in such a form that people are thereafter incapable of determining or deciding between truth and error. If it were true, that would be the worst disservice to the people of this country.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difference between a statement of fact and deductions made from the facts?

Mr. Elliot: This theory that it is given to mortal man absolutely and accurately to determine statements of fact in conditions in which it is impossible for anyone else to quarrel with them is not the line upon which we go in this Committee. We state our different points of view, and the hon. Member opposite has just given his view, and hon. Members then decide for themselves. It would be very odd if the Government ever came to the Committee and said, "We are always right. We have determined the absolute fact. What need is there for a debate in Parliament?"
That is what the hon. Member is commending to the Committee. There Ides the serious danger to the British people in making it impossible for them to make any ascertainment or determination of anything which is put before them, and the hon. Member himself is commending the abolition of the process of Parliamentary debates. He has been demanding the abolition of the Opposition. We know those arguments well. They are the arguments of the dictators, "Why should there be any other source of information? The Duce is always right. Stalin is always right." That is what the Opposition are clamouring for tonight.
We say that that is not so. I do not think that the public or the Committee will believe the arguments that have been put before us. The suggestion that only from official sources can facts be ascertained is not borne out in history or in fact; but that is the contention which has been advanced by hon. Gentlemen oppo-

site. They say, "Only from official sources can the facts be secured. When we have a statement from official sources we must not let anybody else have any other source of information because it might throw doubt upon the sources from which the official news has been produced." Can anybody conceive of such an argument being brought forward in Parliament, of all places? That is the argument which has been brought forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, and when they see it and have it exposed it shocks them. It certainly shocks everybody else.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the B.B.C. has been a reliable and objective disseminator of news in this country for more than a quarter of a century?

Mr. Elliot: I do not deny it, but I deny that it should be the only collector and disseminator of news. That is the argument which has been put forward by the Opposition. They say, "Only the official news should be heard." We have all heard of the island where nobody had ever had a cold. When the cold did come, then all the islanders took the cold. The argument brought forward is for the insulation of the British people, this great nation which has fought for and ascertained truth all over the world and has made itself unpopular with many of the world's rulers by denying the accuracy of the official sources of information. Now, we are told, it has been reduced to such a state that if any piece of fallacious information is given by the B.B.C. or down the microphone it will swallow it, because it cannot distinguish truth from error. Those are the very words of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Mitchison: I assume, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman believes what he is saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On that assumption, I wonder whether he would indicate anything in which he could not believe.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Is it in order for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to insult the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) by suggesting that he believes that nonsense?

Mr. Elliot: If the Opposition Members believe what they have been saying recently they will believe anything. They are telling us that they are so afraid of having any alternative source of information that they wish all other sources of information to be closed up, because if they are shown an error now they will infallibly believe it. That is denied by the plain facts of the case. The hon. Member opposite cited America. We have already given examples from the other side, and are willing to give them again, in which two opposite sides of a case have been presented in America, to the great benefit of the people of America.
It is a commercial broadcasting system which has presented, and is presenting, the case against McCarthy. If there were only a Government system dominated by McCarthy that case could not have been, and would not have been, presented. The American Government machine would be too frightened of McCarthy and too apprehensive to bring forward a case against him. It was left to the Columbia Broadcasting System to put forward a case against McCarthy.
The hon. Gentleman said that news will be distorted and twisted. That is McCarthy's argument, that anything against him is distorted and twisted news. It was left to the Columbia Broadcasting System to present an opposite system of facts, to the great advantage of America. It is not true that American news is constantly twisted and turned against the real facts of the case. We in this country have every reason to be grateful to Ed. Murrow. When Ed. Murrow was broadcasting here from London during the war, was it the opinion of. the hon. Gentleman that he was twisting, distorting and falsifying the news? Not a bit. The people in this country were very glad indeed to have the honest, decent straightforward reporting of Ed. Murrow.

9.45 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that Mr. Walter Winchell was banned by the Federal Communications Commission for telling lies in his news broadcast over a commercial network, and that the Federal Communications Commission has constantly to check the tendency of American news commentators to distort the truth?

Mr. Elliot: Inaccurate information may have been given on the American radio system. It has not been unknown elsewhere on more than one occasion when people have had quasi-Government enterprises to defend. This country is greatly indebted to many commercial enterprises which have revealed about Government enterprises the grim facts which were not being given to the world by Government sources. I am willing to leave it at that.
There are no infallible sources of truth anywhere in the world. I do not claim that everything in the American commercial system is true. I do say that, given the choice between truth and error, the American people are not incapable of detecting the difference for themselves. It is a gross libel on our people to say that they are less capable of detecting that difference than are the people of the United States, but that is what is being said on the other side.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to assert that at any time I have tried to suppress information which should have been the property of the Government? Is he making that accusation?

Mr. Elliot: Not at all. As the hon. Member said earlier about hon. Members on this side, he is too sensitive.

Sir L. Plummer: It was near to a smear.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): Order. We are getting just a little far from the Amendment, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would confine his arguments to that Amendment.

Mr. Elliot: I will do my utmost to obey, but I have, if possible, to give way to hon. Members opposite. I am unwilling to traduce them or to smear them, although they are not always as willing to refrain from smearing us.
I shall come narrowly and closely to the point. The suggestion that only from official sources can accurate news be collected and delivered is in fiat contradiction to historical and present-day facts. Without alternative sources, which, thank goodness, we have, in the Press we should be sadly ignorant of the facts. There is no reason to suppose that an absolute and accurate determination of facts can


be secured from one source in the air any more than that it can be secured by one source in print. Those who argue for one source in the air would argue for one source in print. That is the way to dictatorship.

Mr. J. Grimond: We all revere and enjoy the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot). I think that possibly we particularly enjoy the paradoxes which occasionally, like the gaily-coloured balls in the hands of the a conjuror, he balances on his eloquence. Like him, I am a great supporter of competition, but I think he went a little far. He said that in a law suit both sides of the case are presented, which is true, but surely one does not later have reports saying, on the one hand, that the defendant was found guilty and, on the other, that he was found not guilty. It is an established fact that the Government won the last Division with my assistance—they may have been right or wrong—but I cannot believe that we want competition to prove or alter the fact that they won.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has surely heard of the Court of Appeal and knows that a verdict in one court may be reversed by another?

Mr. Grimond: That does not carry the argument any further. The fact that the verdict is reversed does not alter the fact that in the lower court the verdict was one of guilty.

Mr. Mayhew: To do justice to the right hon. Gentleman's position, it is, as I understand it, that he wishes the result of the Division to be reported as being a 28 majority, then as a 24 majority, and finally as a 26 majority.

Mr. Grimond: I am not quite sure whether we are doing the right hon. Gentleman more or less than justice or just justice. However, the right hon. Gentleman has had a scientific training, and there has been laboriously built up a corpus of scientific knowledge which a great many people accept, rightly or wrongly, and no doubt will continue to accept. There are, however, many types and shades of news in which it is difficult to distinguish between what is fact, as we understand it, and opinion.
I am a supporter of competition, and I do not believe that the British people

have such a weak mentality that they will be debauched by a certain amount of competition on the air from sponsored or commercial television. However, when we come to the news, to say that its presentation should be supported by commercial interests is possibly carrying the argument for the Bill to rather doctrinaire lengths.
The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that if the Amendment was accepted the B.B.C. would hold the monopoly. That is not the purpose of the Amendment. There will still be two sources of news, the B.B.C. and the Authority.

Mr. G. Darling: To provide competition.

Mr. Grimond: Yes, to provide competition. That is what I understand. There will also be the newspapers. I very much enjoy the newspapers and a good many other hon. Members enjoy not only the rather more serious newspapers but the less serious newspapers. For instance, it is rather difficult to find the "Daily Mirror" in the House because it is in such demand. Whatever one may say about it, it fulfils a need. The British people want it; the British people get it. Why should they not have it?
But I think no one will deny that in selecting the news the newspapers show different characteristics. Some tend to select the sensational news, news that is attractive to the public, and for good reason, but not news that is always the more important in the long run. Sometimes news about the cosh boys and crime receives an undue share of attention in some newspapers, judged from the standpoint of what is important. That is perfectly all right in the newspapers. I am not so sure that we want to carry that on to the air.
I am not so sure we want to weight the news on the air as it is weighted in the newspapers. If one does not like one newspaper and the way it presents the news one can choose another newspaper, but on the air there can be at the most only two or three programmes from which to choose. There is a strong case for keeping the news on the air reasonably colourless, reasonably unsensational. It may be argued that if an alternative programme puts out sensational news


those who do not like it can still listen to the B.B.C., but I am afraid that if a broadcast programme of news is objectionable—I am not saying that it will be—it will tend to degrade the reputation of broadcast news generally in Britain for listeners will not always distinguish between the news broadcast by the B.B.C. and by anyone else.
I am afraid people will say, "In the old days we used to be able to believe what came over the air from Britain. Now we are not so sure." That would be a great pity, and would harm our prestige abroad. We have to remember that in this country there is a terrifying belief—

Mr. Arthur Colegate: But surely people abroad have no difficulty in distinguishing between "The Times," which is taken by every foreign Chancellory in the world, and the "Daily Mirror."

Mr. Grimond: I think that is so.
I am not sure, however, that it would be equally easy for them to distinguish between the B.B.C. and an alternative programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If hon. Members look at the "Daily Mirror" and then at "The Times," they will notice, even at first sight, some startling differences. On the other hand, when listening to the wireless I have to listen for a few moments before I know which station it is. One turns a knob and sometimes one gets an unidentified station—that is, with a set like mine which is laid out on the pre-war pattern. I think the difficulty is much greater. I believe there will be a danger that the whole standard will be reduced if we have commercial competition in presenting the news.
People have great belief in what is written in the newspapers and what goes over the air. It is sometimes taken for gospel truth if it has been seen in print or heard over the air, yet anyone who knows a subject intimately realises that nearly all reports on it are a little inaccurate. I do not think that is anybody's fault; it is inevitable because of the speed at which news moves, but that is nevertheless true. We have a strong duty to safeguard accuracy as far as we can, and I believe that this Amendment might well do that.
When we come to consider comment on the news, that is an entirely different matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that comment should be as free as possible—much freer than it is now. By all means let people discuss and comment on the news and have the greatest freedom in that direction. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who wants to present different sides of matters on which we can take different views. I think that is clearly understood as being desirable and as being a different matter from the presentation of news.
There is one point I would make on it, however; I hope that the B.B.C. will be freed from some of the conventions under which it labours. For instance, there is a convention, agreed upon by all parties, that items which are to be discussed in the House shall not be discussed by the B.B.C. immediately beforehand. Occasionally that is unfair and certainly unnecessary. I hope there will be greater freedom in the expression of views but, ardent supporter as I am of competition, I do not think it is essential to have news programmes in this country—which at the moment are purely factual and ought to remain so—promoted by commercial interests.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and I are agreed in as far as he considers that competition is desirable. Where we seem to differ is on the degree of competition. He argued that it might affect our prestige abroad. I would remind him that in discussing the provision of a news service we are talking about television, and there is no question of our television news service being sent abroad, at least not in the direct way which he was suggesting. Undoubtedly, he had the analogy of sound broadcasting in mind.
I will not enter into the general argument of whether or not competition in the presentation of news is desirable, except to say that there is a distinct difference between truth and fact. When the adjutant of a regiment with which I had some connection reported to the brigade headquarters that 50 per cent, of the teetotallers in his regiment had died, that was a fact; and if such an item of news had been announced on the B.B.C, it would have been factual and objective. But to arrive at the truth it was


necessary to be given another item of news, namely, that there were only two teetotallers in the regiment and that one of them had died.
When we turn to the precise effect of the Amendment, if it were carried—

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us an interesting story. Would he think that that fact would be properly presented by an advertising agency acting for the brewers?

Captain Orr: I should say that there is no reason to assume that an advertising agency acting for the brewers would not give both sides of the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop my ideas a little further on how a news service might possibly be presented that may become clearer.
The Amendment, if carried, simply means that instead of the news being provided by someone else it should, in fact, be provided by the Authority itself. I do not think that it is desirable that the Authority should provide the news. In the first place, it should not necessarily be mandatory upon the Authority at all to see that any news is provided. If it is felt that we should have news and that the Authority should insist upon a news service being provided, then the Authority should do it in a way otherwise than providing it itself.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is telling the Committee that so far as he is concerned he does not believe that there ought or need be any competition in the news at all.

Captain Orr: I do not think that the hon. Member is correctly stating what I said. I said that it should not, in my view, necessarily be mandatory upon the Authority to provide a news service or to see that a news service is provided, but that is not the real point which I want to make.
If a news service is to be provided, then it should not be provided by the Authority. My reasons for saying that are simple. If we permit the Authority to put on a news service, the Authority will have to take unto itself studios, equipment and a large staff. If it is going to have those studios, equipment and staff merely for the purpose of providing news, there will be a considerable

amount of time when that staff and equipment will be idle. Presumably, for a reasonable presentation of news there needs to be an outside broadcasting unit, at least one and probably others, and it is necessary to have the staff to go round with them. It may be that they will be idle quite a lot of the time when they could be used for some other purpose.

Mr. G. Darling: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find if he goes into this, that the part of the B.B.C. equipment most constantly in use is that for producing the B.B.C. home unit and outside broadcasts—all the stuff that today we generically call news. That is the side of B.B.C. equipment most fully used.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member is, I believe, confusing outside broadcasting and news. I would not necessarily regard the televising of a sporting event as a presentation of news. If the B.B.C. put on a newsreel recording some outside event several days late that is not necessarily news. We have not yet seen in this country what television news should be. Therefore, I suggest that it is wrong at this stage that a provision of that kind should be in the hands of the Authority.
In my view, the Authority would not be a competent body to present the television news. I suggest the Authority should be told, "Now, you have to see that news is provided." The Authority would then go to the person who leases the transmitters and say to one of the programme contractors, or to several programme contractors, "We want you to put on some sort of news service." The Authority might give some kind of general indication, and would then leave it (to the programme contractors.
I believe that it should be left entirely to the programme contractor. I do not believe that the Authority should com mission news at all. I have never liked the idea of the Authority commissioning anything, but it might conceivably be possible—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does this mean that the hon. and gallant Member now completely deserts his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and does not care whether there is competition in news or not?

Captain Orr: It would be very odd if an Ulsterman were ever to desert a


Scotsman; we have a good deal of kinship. At any rate, I think that that is probably the best method of approaching the business of news.
If a responsible programme contractor takes on the job of providing a full-time television service for several hours a day, for every day of the week, obviously he would be a person with considerable experience and ideas at his disposal. He is obviously the right person to put on the news. If, however, it is felt that that is undesirable, some sort of special agency should be set up rather on the lines of being in the same position as a programme contractor—a news agency, with the Authority commissioning the news from it. [An HON. MEMBER: "And paying for it?"] Yes, paying. I do not like that alternative anything like as much as the first one

Mr. Shackleton: Would the agency have its studios and equipment?

Captain Orr: Yes. I admit that this possibly concedes the argument which was advanced against my earlier argument about the Authority. But I should prefer studios and equipment owned by a private enterprise concern in contract with the Authority rather than the creation of another system of nationalised broadcasting—because that is what it would lead to.
We had some discussion earlier about State monopolies, but what we have now is nationalised broadcasting. That is what we are trying to defeat. I believe that the Amendment should be rejected, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to advise us accordingly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gammans: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I now indicate the Government's attitude towards the Amendment. What we are discussing is the way in which the news shall be presented. The Opposition, I gather, feel that the only body who can be trusted to present the news with accuracy and impartiality is the Authority.
If the Authority did the news, we should run straightaway into the physical difficulty, although I do not base my case on that, which was put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

Down, South (Captain Orr). It would mean that if the Authority presented the news itself, it would have to maintain an outside broadcasting organisation, editorial staff, and so on. I do not want to use that argument except to point out that this was not mentioned when the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) moved the Amendment. It is, however, a point to be considered.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In our earlier debates, was it not stated from the Government side that the £750,000 a year was not only for other purposes, but was for this purpose also? The hon. Gentleman is retracting.

Mr. Gammans: I am not retracting. I am coming to that in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman must not race on to arguments that are two ahead of the one with which I am dealing.
The hon. Member for Deptford used the Press as an analogy. I am not quite sure whether he felt that the British Press was objective. I thought he got close to suggesting that sometimes it was not. He clearly thought that news presented through television by any way other than the Authority—I think I can quote his words—"would be distorted to suit the advertisers."
I thought the hon. Gentleman made out a very strong case for a single newspaper—and a Government one at that—because he was getting very near the idea that there could not be only one source of true news and that source must be under some sort of Government control. I am sure that that is not an idea which he with his experience would advance or one which he would care to put forward to a Press audience.
Under this Bill we are setting up an organisation which has certain definite obligations. One of the obligations is to present the news—and here I quote—
with due accuracy and impartiality.
That is its responsibility. Why do we doubt its ability to do that, or do we mistrust its honesty to do it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, it is a technical point.

Mr. Gammans: That is its responsibility. We have laid upon it an obligation which has not been laid upon the B.B.C.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There is no need to.

Mr. Gammans: So far as I know the B.B.C. has never been told to present the news with either accuracy or impartiality.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is a public service.

Mr. Gammans: What is the Independent Authority going to be?

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is giving public money to private enterprise.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman reduces everything to that argument. We are to set up this Authority, which is a body to which this House votes money.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Public money.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, public money, and the B.B.C. was set up in the same way. Why should we think there would be any difference with this Authority? Why should we distrust the men put on one authority and hold up the men on the other authority as misguided? It is plain what is behind the whole of this Amendment. One body of men are to be trusted and the other body of men are not. Both organisations are set up in the same way and they are both dependent on the Government helping them.

Mr. Shackleton: How can the hon. Gentleman say that when we say the Authority should be required to put on the news themselves, that that could possibly mean we are not prepared to trust the Authority? What we want is that it should do the job and not be compelled to sell it away.

Mr. Gammans: We have set up the Authority on whom we have laid a definite obligation which is to see that the news is presented with accuracy and impartiality. We have never laid that obligation on the B.B.C.; we are laying it on the Authority and I think rightly so, but why should we start off by thinking it will not do it? Why do we mistrust it? Is it that we think that the wrong sort of men are to be appointed? What is the point of it all?

Mr. G. Darling: Surely the point is a technical one. How can the members of the Authority look at each item of news before it goes out? It is technically impossible.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman will agree that we have laid a definite obligation on the Authority to see the news goes out with accuracy and impartiality. We have given it stringent powers to enforce that. Where does the B.B.C. get its news from? To hear some hon. Gentleman talk one would think they manufactured it. But they get it from Reuter and from the Press Association.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Darling: Five associations.

Mr. Gammans: That is the same thing. But it does not manufacture the news. This is not B.B.C. news we are talking about. It is news that the B.B.C. has got from the Press Association and the other associations. Why should we suppose that this Authority may not get its news from exactly the same sources? The Authority has a duty laid upon it to see that the news goes out with accuracy and impartiality.
And what about "Television News-reel"? Where does that come from? It comes partly from the B.B.C.'s own cameras, but a large part of it comes from private enterprise newsreel companies. Why should we suppose that this Authority, which has the task and duty of ensuring the impartiality of the news, will not do exactly the same thing?
I want to stress this point of accuracy and impartiality, because it is a complete answer to the Amendment. If we accepted the Amendment, we 6hould be trying to determine in advance the way in which the Authority is likely to carry on its business. In fact, it would be tantamount to suggesting that the Authority would not be competent to carry out the obligations and the duty laid upon it. It would be saying, "We do not trust the contractors to present the news with impartiality and, therefore, we are going to see that you do it yourselves."

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman explain something to the Committee? He told us, on 29th March:
Another item with which, possibly, we should not want advertising associated is the news, which we are bound by our pledges in the House to present with impartiality, and maybe, even the Children's Hour. Those are the sort of things on which this money "—
that is, the £750,000—
would be spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1954: Vol. 525. c. 1747.]


How would that money be spent on that purpose if the news were presented by programme contractors?

Mr. Gammans: I am so grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for reminding me of my next point.
How will the news be provided? That is for the Authority itself to decide in the light of the obligations which are laid upon it. It may be done by getting the news, as the B.B.C. gets it, from an impartial body like Reuters or the Press Association. One thing is certain; if that is the way it decides to do it, it has the money with which to buy it. That was why I was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed so strongly that it it should have the money. It was to give the Authority a sense of independence so that, if it wished to buy news, it would be able to do it. It is no use our setting up an Authority with specific obligations, such as we have laid on this Authority, if we try to do the job for it before it starts.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman carry this one step further? He says that it is a matter for the Independent Television Authority to decide. Does this mean that the Authority will have the right to have its own studio, to have its own outside broadcast unit for the purpose of putting over a television newsreel if it so desired?

Mr. Gammans: No, it does not mean quite that. Once we have laid down in this House the general lines upon which the Authority shall work, if the Authority believes that the only way in which it can present the news with accuracy and impartiality is to buy the news from somewhere else and to send it out, it can do so. That is exactly what the B.B.C. does.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentle-is not answering my question. He said that the Authority would decide how this is to be done. If the Authority so decides, can it have its own studio, its own outside broadcast unit, and put over its own television newsreel?

Mr. Gammans: The Authority will not need many studios to present the news [HON. MEMBERS: "One."] That is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Authority. If the Authority wishes to do so, and it is quite satisfied

that the only way to present the news with accuracy and impartiality is by doing it itself, which is what is suggested by hon. Members opposite, the Authority has the power and the money to do it. I am not going to lay down at this stage that it must be the duty of the Authority to present the news itself. I think that that would be going much too far. It casts aspersions upon the ability and the honesty of the Authority. Therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ede:: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the last alternative that the Authority is to consider is broadcasting the news itself?

Mr. Gammans: I should say, yes. I am quite happy to admit that. The function of the Authority is to be responsible for what goes on the air. It is given money to carry out that responsibility, but it is not the intention of the Government that the Authority itself should set up as a programme company.

Mr. Shackleton: The Committee will be glad that the Government have shown that they are still in favour of the Authority broadcasting its own programme where it is necessary to do so. I find this difficulty, that at one moment the Assistant Postmaster-General is trying to conciliate his hon. Friends below the Gangway—I exclude the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), because the hon. Gentleman quite properly ignored his speech—and at the next moment he is saying that the Authority has complete power, if it thinks that that is the best way, though not the only way, to put out the news itself. The hon. Gentleman did not even say "as a last resort." He said that if it is the best way to provide news the Authority has power to put out the news itself.

Captain Orr: Did not my right hon. Friend say that it was the last alternative?

Mr. Shackleton: The Assistant Postmaster-General has been very brave today, and we do not want to keep on pulling at him. At the moment we have a little hold on him, and he is coming our way on this fundamental issue. He ignored the arguments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove, who made a number of suggestions which bore no relation whatsoever to the speech


of my hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer) or to the Amendment. He spoke a lot about gunnery. I can only tell him that the Air Force tries to hit the target the first time and not to bracket it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Is it in order, Sir Charles, to suggest that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) had nothing to do with the Amendment?

The Chairman: I was not in the Chair at the time. I cannot answer that.

Mr. Shackleton: I will leave the speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove, and go on to a very simple point, which I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider again. It is that objectivity in the presentation of news is what the House of Commons, this Committee, the country, the Government and the Opposition want.
We are not suggesting for one moment that the Authority—although we do not yet know what that Authority will be—will not try to do its best in the matter. We are saying that this responsibility should be laid on the Authority, and that the only effective way in which it can carry out that responsibility is by doing the job itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Most hon. Members opposite below the Gangway did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. I do not propose to repeat it, because this debate is under the Guillotine and we have to get on as rapidly as we can.
I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to look again very seriously at the arguments put forward. I think he may find that the Authority, when set up, will, in fact, be favourably inclined towards putting out the news itself, and I hope that his speech has made it clear that the Authority will be permitted to do so.

Mr. Pitman: As the Assistant Postmaster-General has pointed out, under Clause 3 the Authority will have an obligation virtually to see that some news is given. Otherwise, there will not be a proper, balanced programme. Secondly, it will be under obligation to see that there is accurate and impartial news when it does so. Under the Bill it is, in the first instance, required to use a chosen instrument in the form of one of the programme contractors for this purpose.
The purpose of the Amendment is to put a stop to that because it requires the Authority to provide programmes of all items of current news. In other words, it is only the Authority which will be doing that. It will, therefore, debar the alternative presentation of news which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) rightly said is the very essence of British liberty. Everyone knows that "The Times" is a very reliable source of news, but that does not mean that it is not desirable for the trade union movement—it is free to do so—to run the "Daily Herald." Equally, I would stick up for the "Daily Mirror" as a presenter of news for people who, otherwise, would read no news at all.
It seems perfectly clear that in this respect the ideal arrangement is that which we have in the Bill in which the prime responsibility in the first instance is to carry out the presentation of news in a balanced programme accurately and impartially through the chosen instrument. But there are permissive reserve powers, if no chosen instrument can do the job properly, for the Authority to do it. I cannot see why that is not an ideal solution for what everyone in this Committee desires.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had some very interesting observations from both sides of the Committee on this matter. What astonished me was that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) apparently held the view that because newsreels had been adequately developed there was no need to put this responsibility on to the Independent Television Authority. I thought that was completely in contrast to the very long apology made by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who devoted almost the whole of his speech to having not only one set of facts but three views of one set of facts, two of which were obviously wrong and one which was obviously right.
I never heard such a shameful apology for a situation of this sort as that which came from the right hon. Member. The Assistant Postmaster-General seemed to be sliding backwards a little and it was very interesting to see the discomfiture of hon. Members opposite. I think we all agree that there shall be the B.B.C. news as we know it and the news from


the Independent Television Authority. No one has argued that there should only be the B.B.C. news, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L Plummer).
The argument of my hon. Friend was that the second source of news should be uncontaminated and uninfluenced by material interests. His general argument was that it should not be under the influence of Guinnesses, Littlewoods. Shermans or anyone of that kind.

It being Half-past Ten o Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL SERVICE

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, under subsection (3) of section thirty-two of the National Service Act, 1948, praying that the National Service (Adaptation of Enactments) (Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th May.—[Mr. Birch.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

NATIONAL PARKS (GRANTS)

10.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Parks and Access to the Countryside (Grants) Regulations, 1954 (S.I., 1954. No. 415), dated 30th March, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be annulled.
It is a peculiarity of the procedure of this House that if an hon. Member desires to draw attention to a valuable set of Regulations, or to secure some elucidation of them, the only way for him to do so is to move that they be annulled. He will know that, as in this case, the desire of hon. Members is that the Regulations shall be approved provided that we can secure, as I am sure that we shall, some elucidation from the Parliamentary Secretary about them.
The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that all who are concerned about the establishment of National Parks in

this country, and who have taken part in the process for their establishment, are anxious because the county councils and other local authorities have not shown any great approval of the proposals of the National Parks Commission. I am glad to say that there are some exceptions, notably in my own county of Northumberland, where a desirable and commendable attitude has been shown, and where it is maintained that the proposals are not sufficiently extensive. That is an attitude that I am sure we all welcome.
But there are many authorities, particularly in the South of England, which are opposed to the proposals of the Commission. I regret to say that in some cases they have succeeded in limiting the development of the idea of National Parks. I am sure that one of the reasons for the opposition is because some local authorities fear the financial burdens which may be placed on them because of operations under the National Parks Act or the Town and Country Planning Act. We therefore welcome the introduction of Statutory Instruments of this nature, which tend to make clearer the financial provision which the Government are prepared to make available under the Acts to local authorities for the development of suitable works in National Park areas. I am one who hopes that this wider knowledge may encourage some local authorities to take a different view.
I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that, broadly speaking, the effect of these Instruments, which I think he will agree is complex, is that where compensation payments have to be made to owners by local authorities in a National Park area in connection with the acquisition of land or loss of value of land, because of general access, or some other provision of that nature, such expenditure will rank for grant, provided it does not exceed the sum settled by the district valuer. That is the interpretation of paragraph 3 of the Regulations.
Paragraph 5 lays down a fairly lengthy list of different types of expenditure which will be approved generally by the Minister as ranking for grant. It includes expenditure such as that on providing accommodation as there will be in some National Park areas. For example, I understand that in the Peak District it


is hoped to provide some extra accommodation which is needed, and this will be done in co-operation with the Youth Hostels Association. Such expenditure will be met, in part, out of Government grant.
Expenditure will be needed on the removal of derelict buildings and eyesores of one sort or another. That will rank for grant. So, in suitable cases, will the appointment of wardens. In the Peak District National Park also, I understand, some wardens have already been appointed for the purpose of assisting in the proper preservation of the area and in helping to provide for the protection of the land of farmers which, it has been rightly feared, might suffer damage. That type of expenditure will also be brought within the ambit of these Regulations; that is, I think it will be grant aided.
There is now one point about which I would ask; it is a point of which I have already given notice, and it is one which has already been raised in practice in some of the National Park areas. Is there any way in which the extra expenditure for the provision of underground electric cables can be met? Can that additional expenditure be met, or is it true, as I fear it may be, that that extra expenditure, if it has to be met at all, will have to come from the local authority concerned? That, I think all hon. Members would agree, would be most unfortunate, because there are some areas of the country, particularly in the Lake District, where we are anxious to see farmers and others enjoying the full benefits of electricity while, at the same time, we are also most anxious not to spoil the natural beauty of the areas.
In some of the areas it would be a great disaster if we had great electric pylons marching over the mountains. We want to avoid such a thing happening if we possibly can, and yet the extra expenditure on underground cables is particularly heavy; and local authorities may ask if it is fair that they should have to bear the whole of this additional cost for what, after all, is a National Park, and which is preserved not only in the interests of the people living in the area, but in the interests of the country as a whole. If this kind of expenditure is not grant aided, then could I ask if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider again the possibility of making available

to the National Parks Commission a small sum of money out of which some of this sort of extra expenditure could be met.
This is one of the difficulties which arise in feeling the way in respect of the proper functions of the National Parks at the present time. Many of us have felt for some time that if the National Parks Commission could be enabled to use, for example, some of the funds which are available in the National Land Fund, of which some use is being made in other directions already, we should be very happy. I recognise that this matter is a little outside the ambit of the Regulations, and I am merely asking the Parliamentary Secretary to take it into account.
I assume from the provisions of the Regulations that the rate of grant will normally be 75 per cent, of the expenditure of the local authority on the specified items, but that in the special case of canals and waterways—I imagine that lakes might be included—certain expenditure can be approved up to the full 100 per cent., if the Minister so decides.
While the Government are, in this respect, fully carrying out the provisions of the Act, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in some areas, such as in Merioneth and elsewhere in Wales, which have a very small capacity for raising finance, the remaining 25 per cent., in the case of the normal grant, may still represent a considerable burden. I am anxious that the Minister should examine other means of meeting the special cases which I fear will arise from time to time.
I move the Prayer, not with the intention of securing the annulment of the Regulations, but with the desire to have their valuable provisions expanded so that they will be more widely accepted by local authorities. The debate also gives the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to deal with one or two of the matters which I have raised in the hope that the National Parks Commission and the local authorities shall be given every encouragement to further the work which it is desired shall be done.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here to reply to the debate.


We regret that on most subjects he has unfortunate opinions, but we all appreciate his very progressive and helpful attitude towards this subject, and all who are interested in the National Parks appreciate the work that he is doing.
In so far as the Parliamentary Secretary cannot comfort my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) because of the provisions of the Act, I hope he will seek occasion to improve them. The Order makes use of the powers under Section 97 of the Act. When the Measure was discussed in the House there was criticism on this very point from both sides of the House. Hon. Members who were then on the Government benches felt that the provisions did not go far enough, and that many authorities would be prevented from doing what was required in respect of the National Parks, and many hon. Members opposite who were then on the Opposition benches believed that greater use would have to be made of the National Land Fund.
After all, the National Parks are a compromise. In a very real sense they are a national responsibility. There is the national element of the recreational facilities which they provide; the other element is the local authority element, and the Regulations deal with that balance. Many of us feel that, unfortunately, the Government cannot go far enough. We ask the Government to go as far as possible in making the best use of these Regulations.
I am aware that Mr. Arthur Dower, the National Chairman of the Youth Hostels Association, has recently written to the right hon. Gentleman and stressed again the importance of finance. He said:
It is no exaggeration to say that no country in the world except us would be so illogical as to set up what it called ' National Parks' and then expect them to be financed primarily from the local rates and only secondarily and conditionally from national funds.
We are an illogical people. We tackle our problems empirically and then build upon foundations which are perhaps not so theoretically right as those of other countries; but in the end we probably get further. Having committed ourselves, I hope that we shall do all we can to go ahead and give the local authorities every possible help.

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am grateful, and a little astonished, that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) should say that I am in any respect progressive. It is very nice to know that Members of the Opposition think that.
The House will have been grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) for moving the annulment of these Regulations, although he really wants the Statutory Instrument to go through. It gives me an opportunity of explaining and publicising the provisions of the Regulations. He has covered the ground himself adequately in a lucid and friendly way. I should not like to be drawn into a comparison between the relative enthusiasms of local authorities for National Parks. I should not, for example, like to compare Northumberland with Cumberland. Other people have done that, with disastrous results to their heads, in the Middle Ages.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman might say a word of praise for Durham.

Mr. Marples: I have a word of praise for all local authorities who support National Parks.
I hope that this debate will enable local authorities to have a wider knowledge of the financial provisions of these Regulations, which give effect to the grant provisions contained in Section 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. There is an Explanatory Memorandum which hon. Members can obtain, and which sets out the detailed arrangements.
The purpose of the Regulations is to provide grants for the erection of buildings, for carrying out works for the provision in the area and in the neighbourhood of National Parks of accommodation, refreshments, camping sites and parking-places; for carrying out works for the improvement of waterways for the purpose of recreation; for the discontinuance or modification of uses of land and the alteration or removal of buildings in National Parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty; for the planting of trees, and the treatment of derelict land; for the provision of public access to open country in National


Parks; for the acquisition of land for all these purposes and for the employment of wardens. The rate of grant is 75 per cent, for approved expenditure, except expenditure upon improvement of waterways, when it may be higher, up to 100 per cent.
These Regulations are simpler than was expected at one time and as generous as they possibly could be in the framework of the Act on the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend could not have made them more generous had he tried, because they get a flat rate of grant of 75 per cent, for all National Park authorities in respect of expenditure for which the Act provides that rate, that is, 75 per cent cent., as a maximum. So they get the maximum rate. That is instead of a rate of grant varying from 75 per cent, to 30 per cent, according to the financial position of the local authorities concerned. Therefore, to that extent my right hon. Friend has gone as far as he can under the terms of the Act.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East mentioned some special cases, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of these cases. The first question was: would the extra cost of putting electric cables underground be grant-aided? Secondly, would expenditure on providing improved accommodation qualify for grant? Thirdly, I think, was the question: would there be grants for meeting compensation in removing eyesores?
As regards the first of these cases, there is no power in the Act to enable payments to be made from the Exchequer to regional electricity boards towards the extra cost of putting new electric cables underground. The boards can, and do in practice, pay attention to amenities, both in siting overhead lines, and, on occasion, in burying them in important places. Experience shows that much can be done in this regard by discussion between local planning authorities and the electricity boards. Planning control provides a means by which outstanding disputes can be brought, if necessary, before the Minister. I think the hon. Gentleman's remarks were slightly outside the Regulations, but I should like to see whether anything could be done, because, as the hon. Member for Sunder-land, North knows, I have this at heart just as much as the Opposition.
As regards the second point of whether expenditure on providing improved accommodation would qualify for grant, the answer is "Yes," under paragraph 5 (1, a) of the Regulations.
The third question is whether there would be grants-in-aid for meeting compensation for removing eyesores. The answer again is "Yes," under paragraph 5 (1, c) of the Regulations. It means that we have gone as far as we can under the existing Statute to meet the National Parks. It is rather important because we recognise the special position that National Parks have in the life of this country.
We have made the grant 75 per cent, and in exceptional cases relating to waterways, such as the Broads, where the salted and weed-choked waterways have to be reopened, we have provided for a grant which may rise to 100 per cent. This system recognises the need in these areas, and the national benefit which results, and I think we have given generous assistance to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the National Parks Act.
I hope, therefore, that with that explanation local authorities will be encouraged to make use of these provisions, that they will read carefully the Regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum, and that we shall be able to make our National Parks as attractive as countries overseas.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that we are an illogical race. It was Disraeli, I think, who said, "This country is not governed by logic, but by Parliament" and I am glad to know that this Parliament will be unanimous in approving these Regulations.

10.55 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have no National Park in my constituency, and see no prospect of one, but we shall contribute to the National Parks in the North of England. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say how much this will cost. My constituents will have to pay for the National Parks wanted by the two hon. Gentlemen from the North who have moved and supported the Prayer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: By the hon. Baronet's constituents, too.

Sir H. Williams: This National Park is about 200 miles from where they live.
It is all very well, but we are always proposing new expenditure out of the Exchequer, and my hon. Friend has not said one word about what this is likely to cost. My constituents and I should like to know how much it will cost to walk along the Pennine Way from one end to the other. I do not think they are interested in the Pennine Way. It may be a very good idea for the people in the North of England, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) to walk along the Pennine Way, but I think we should have an indication of what this proposal is likely to cost.
My hon. Friend cannot speak again without the leave of the House, but there are not a great many hon. Members here and I dare say they will grant him leave to speak again in order to tell us what this will cost.

Mr. Marples: By leave of the House, may I tell my hon. Friend that expenditure on the Pennine Way would not come under these Regulations, because they are made under Section 97 of the Act, and expenditure on the Pennine Way would be under Section 98. I should be out of order were I to answer his question, but I do not think it will cost a substantial sum. So far expenditure on grant-attracting services has been very small. No claim for grant had been received before the Regulations were made. A few inquiries whether expenditure would be eligible for grant had been received, but they amounted in the aggregate to very little, probably not more than a few hundred pounds.
I should not like to commit myself without notice of the question, but I should think that £20,000, or perhaps a little more, would be sufficient to provide for the expenditure under these Regulations. That expenditure can provide very much happiness in places of great beauty. The expenditure is small and the attractions will be great. I hope my hon. Friend, who is so rightly assiduous in his campaign for economy, will agree that this is a modest sum in the circumstances.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The benefits provided in these areas, I think we shall all agree, except the hon. Baronet, are benefits that are enjoyed by people throughout the country, and perhaps more especially by

those who live in London, where the demand for them has been the greatest. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the possibility of the use of the National Land Fund, and that we may be able to discuss that on some other occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING, DAGENHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir C. Drewe.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: On 25th March last I had occasion to raise on the Adjournment the question of housing in Dagenham, and the Parliamentary Secretary answered the debate. I pointed out that the housing list in Dagenham is over 4,400. There is a lack of land for building; the only suitable piece of land available for building, which the council wishes to acquire by compulsory purchase order, is the Eastminster Estate, sometimes called Valentine's Way. Confirmation of a compulsory purchase order was refused by the Ministry, so that over 200 families on the list of the local authority were deprived of the chance of obtaining houses. In their place, 200 families whose need was less great are to be housed by private enterprise.
The Minister did not reply to the case. I suggest he had not a very good reply. He made a counter-attack. That is good tactics when one has not a good case. He attacked the Dagenham Council and accused them of breaking an agreement made with a local builder. In fact, he inferred that his refusal of a compulsory purchase order was due to this alleged misbehaviour of the Dagenham Council. He said:
I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Dagenham … would never have supported his local authority in this matter if he had read the correspondence which I am quite prepared to send to him.
He ended his speech by saying:
I will send the hon. Member extracts from the correspondence and if he wishes to raise the matter again I will challenge him to do so after he has read those extracts."—OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525; c. 1572–73.]


I should like to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in allowing me 10 look through the file on this matter, which I did in his office. Having done so, I must say I was confirmed in my decision to accept his challenge and raise the matter again on the Adjournment. My view, having looked at the correspondence, is that the Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with this matter, was guilty of gross lack of courtesy and rank carelessness.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. I read in the Press that the subject of this Adjournment Motion was to be an attack on the conduct of the Minister. It is news to me that on the Adjournment, which is merely the way we go home, the subject should be announced as an attack on the conduct of a Minister. Since then I understand that there has been some withdrawal. I should like to know what the position is with regard to an hon. Member who announces that on the Adjournment he intends to try to bring forward a Motion of censure. It seems to be most improper.

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) gave notice of the topic he was to raise on this Adjournment, he did put it down as "Housing: conduct of Parliamentary Secretary"—that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. But, of course, any Motion attacking the conduct of another Member of this House ought to be made the subject of a substantive Motion, of which notice should be given. I caused the hon. Member's attention to be drawn to this practice of the House and he changed to the title "Housing in Dagenham." It is on that topic, I understand, that he is now addressing the House. It is a proper subject for the Adjournment.

Mr. Ian Horobin: Further to that point of order. Can the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) say whether he gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary of the exact subject upon which he is now attacking the Parliamentary Secretary? When I inquired at the Vote Office a moment ago, as to the subject of the Adjournment, I was informed it was "Housing: conduct of Parliamentary Secretary."

Mr. Parker: The matter of which I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary was with regard to the correspondence on this matter and the way in which he dealt with it in a previous debate. The hon. Gentleman said:
… I shall rest solely on the correspondence which has passed between the interested parties. The interested parties are the Dagenham Borough Council on the one hand, and Parrish, builders, on the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525. c. 1569.]
On that statement, I should like to point out a number of things. First of all, Dagenham Borough Council were never approached by the Parliamentary Secretary for their side of the case. Knowing that the matter was to be raised in the House, one would have thought it would be ordinary courtesy for a Government Department to ask one of the parties to a dispute what they had to say on the matter. But they were never approached and their views and correspondence files were never looked at. The Minister's file was in fact obtained from the private builder, Parrish. Important letters and minutes are absent which throw light on this question. There were three main parties, and not two, to this dispute. They were the Dagenham Borough Council, the land developer and only thirdly the builder. The hon. Member confused the developer and the builder in much of what he said. The only correspondence in the Minister's file is that which happened to favour the case of the builder.
The hon. Member stated that the landowner, Mr. England, did a deal with the Dagenham Council. No agreement was made between Mr. England and the Dagenham Council. The first letter quoted in the correspondence by the hon. Member, was one of 24th November, which was sent by the landowners' agents, Messrs. Kemsley, and it is quoted in column 1570 of HANSARD. In fact, that letter was preceded by a private meeting which took place on that day, the minutes of which were circulated to the various parties at the meeting.
There were present at the meeting, Mr. England, the landowner, a representative of Messrs. Kemsley, the deputy town clerk, the borough surveyor, the deputy borough surveyor and the cleansing superintendent. The early part of the minutes was concerned with a matter


already mentioned by the hon. Member, that is the proposal, that the Dagenham Council should acquire about 93 acres for tipping purposes from Mr. England, and Mr. England agreed to that.
Then the minutes go on:
Mr. England was anxious to proceed with the Eastbrook estate and asked whether the Council would now allow him to proceed. The deputy town clerk explained to him that the Council were probably as anxious as he was over the matter. They were desirous of using this land for housing, and it was thought that any application for planning permission made in the matter by Mr. England would be fully supported by the Council although no guarantee could be given that the Council would not want to proceed with the erection of the houses themselves. Mr. England appreciated this point and offered to come to an amicable arrangement with the Council for the division of the land or if necessary, he would be prepared to proceed with the erection of houses, some of which could be sold to the Council under Circular 92/46.
In his statement the hon. Member definitely took the line that the Dagenham Council only raised this question of building these houses very late in the day. As a matter of fact, they raised it at the very beginning of the whole proceedings before there was any correspondence. The various parties concerned with the case knew that the Dagenham Council had this view right from the beginning.
I should like to say a word about a letter of 1st January, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary in the previous debate; this was written to Messrs. Kemsley as agents for the land developer and not the builder, who at that time had not appeared on the scene at all, although later Messrs. Kemsley were also agents for the builder when he did arrive on the scene.
On this particular matter both the Council and Mr. England wanted this piece of land excluded from the Green Belt for building purposes. They agreed to co-operate on that, but no agreement was reached as to who was to build the houses if it were freed. No deal was made between them as the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech. Messrs. Parrish appeared first on the scene on 16th January, 1953, when Messrs. Kemsley wrote on their behalf as prospective purchasers and submitted a planning application. An extraordinary statement was made by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said:

On 23rd January, 1953, Dagenham wrote to Parrish on the lines that I have indicated.
From his own file I can say that nothing of the sort was sent by way of a reply. There is no letter of that date in the hon. Gentleman's file or on that of the Dagenham Council. No letter was sent, only a standardised acknowledgment card, of which I have a copy here, stamped by Parrish as received on 23rd January, 1953. It was an acknowledgment of Parrish's application to develop that particular land under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary, continuing to quote from their non-existent letter, said that the Council said this:
'It is all right. You must get your planning consent, and we shall do what we can to help you'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1570.]
The Dagenham Council never said that. They never used those words to Mr. England, to Parrish's or to Messrs. Kemsley. They are a figment of the hon. Member's imagination.
The Council continued to try to get the land freed for building purposes, and the matter was argued before the county planning committee by the Dagenham Council. They stressed the need for more houses for Dagenham. Neither Mr. England nor Mr. Parrish or their agents were present at the inquiry. In fact, the Council won the right to use that land by their own efforts, but when they came forward for a compulsory purchase order to satisfy their needs, they were turned down by the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Dagenham Council for sending a "callous" letter to the builders. Actually, that letter was one of three similar ones which went not only to Messrs. Parrish but to Messrs. England and to Mr. Garrett, who had a lease of the land at the time for use as a riding school. It was a genuine attempt to find out who did own the land so that the compulsory purchase order could be correctly drawn up. That this was necessary was shown by the fact that Kemsley's said that England owned the land while a director of Messrs. Parrish said they owned it. In fact, it was only after this that there was a speedy handing over to Messrs. Parrish because the parties concerned thought that a compulsory purchase order was likely to be brought forward.
In column 1571 of HANSARD the hon. Gentleman said that half the people who had taken the houses were on the waiting list of the local authority. He gave as his authority that it was published in the "Romford Times." That is a local paper notorious for its inaccuracies and for being in the pocket of the local builders. On this occasion it was quite inaccurate, because 93 out of 206 persons—less than half of the applicants—live in Dagenham and only 59. that is less than 30 per cent., were on the wait-ting list of the local authority and only two in the priority category, so that the "Romford Times" on that matter was particularly inaccurate and so, unfortunately, was the hon. Member.
In this whole case we have seen a remarkable departure from the normal custom in this House. It is a general practice in our political life that we make appointments to political posts from people who are not normally interested, either professionally or commercially, in that particular field. For example, with regard to the Ministry of Health, it is unusual to appoint a doctor or anyone connected with the Health Service to a post in that Department, because it would be felt that if we appointed a doctor, he would have definite views on cancer research or on the running of hospitals, and would be likely to be biased on many of the administrative questions which might come before him for decision. I suggest, therefore, that this fairly general practice which exists in this country of not appointing people to fields where they have professional or commercial interests, is wise.
But in this matter I would suggest that the hon. Member, having been a private builder before coming a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame‡"]—should exercise particular care to see that, when disputes come up in which a local authority is in dispute with a private builder about a compulsory purchase order or any other matter of that kind, it is especially important that he should not only do justice but appear to do justice—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman give way for a minute? I have considerable experience of the matters I want to put to him. Because of the abysmal confusion of the statements which you have

put forward, and the disgraceful statements that you have made about my hon. Friend—

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this attack on yourself should not be permitted.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any attack on myself. I should repeat what I indicated earlier, that any attack by one hon. Member on another should always be preceded by a notice on the Order Paper and by a substantive Motion. The debate on the Adjournment is not a proper opportunity for that purpose.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If I may continue to put the matter which I was putting to the hon. Member when he gave way to me, there was, I presume, an impartial inquiry by an inspector into the question whether there should be a compulsory purchase or not. He has to advise the Minister and no doubt he gave his advice. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that fact? Is he also aware that the question whether a person is a builder or not has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and that he has shown a most abysmal ignorance of the procedure under the Housing Act?

Mr. Parker: On this particular matter no public inquiry was ever held, so that the matter could not be argued out, or information given to the public, or the facts brought to the notice of the hon. Gentleman or the House. In fact, the Dagenham Borough Council asked for an inquiry, but that was refused by the Parliamentary Secretary. Any private individual can insist on having his objection heard at a public inquiry, but a public authority have no such right to insist. In this case it is desirable that there should have been a public inquiry.
On the facts, I say that in a case of this kind it is very important that justice should not only be done but appear to have been done. It has not been done nor does it appear to have been done to my constituents or the Dagenham Borough Council. I feel the House should be aware of that fact, and that the hon. Gentleman should apologise for his action in this matter, and see that he does not take similar action in future.

Mr. Horobin: Speaking of justice, can I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to


column 1571 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the previous debate? May I ask him whether he is putting to the House that justice is done when, in a letter written on 17th July, the council states to the private builders:
My council have always held the opinion that the land, the subject of this planning application should be used for housing purposes and they are, therefore, of the opinion that your application should be granted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1571.]
According to the hon. Gentleman they had every intention of compulsorily acquiring the land and taking it over.

Mr. Parker: I have already explained to the House that the developer and the council worked together for the one purpose of getting the land freed for building purposes, but that they were not agreed on who should build on it afterwards.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I should like to declare an interest since the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has mentioned that the firm with which I am connected was retained in this matter, although, personally, I had nothing to do with this case.
I should like, first of all, to say how extraordinary it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman should have led us all to believe that he was to raise on the Adjournment the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary, causing speculation in the Press and in the House ever since he gave notice as to what particular misdemeanor the Parliamentary Secretary had been responsible for. It seems an extraordinary thing to have done.
I do know that ever since the firm with which I am associated was retained in this matter it was led to believe by the Dagenham Borough Council that they would support their application, and the correspondence makes that clear.

Mr. Parker: The hon. Member's firm was present at the meeting of which I read out the minute and the matter was discussed.

Mr. Thomton-Kemsley: Since that time the correspondence and the interviews make it perfectly clear that the council were prepared to support the

application of the landowner and the builders to get the estate developed with houses, and it seems extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should have condoned the conduct of the council and say, as he did to the House, in column 1565, that it is quite a normal thing if they want land to support a builder and then turn round, as soon as the builder has done the work and got permission to develop, and step in with a compulsory purchase order. It is a most disgraceful thing, and I am surprised that he should have condoned that conduct.

Mr. Bing: Why does the hon. Member not tell the House, since he is so well acquainted with the area, that in the next-door constituency 74 houses have been built for letting and 759 have been built by his friends for private sale?

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The original title chosen for the debate was rather misleading, and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker)—who has always been perfectly courteous to me as an individual—has been rather unfair.
The original title was "Housing: conduct of Parliamentary Secretary." It has not been on the Order Paper, but has certainly been published for over a week. It is misleading because it looks as if my personal conduct is being brought as an issue before the House, and it is unfair because it gave rise to many unfounded rumours about me personally.
The Press have been making daily inquiries at my home ever since the title was published. The title was only amended yesterday, but by that time the damage had been done and rumours were flying round. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took your advice, Mr. Speaker, and amended the title. I am a little sorry that he has not apologised for putting in a title which has certainly damaged me personally.
One of my hon. Friends interrupted the hon. Gentleman to ask if he had given me notice of what he proposed to raise. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me two days ago and I received the letter yesterday. He said:
Dear Marples,
I shall be raising points on Wednesday evening on the Adjournment about the correspondence concerning the Eastminster Estate.


That was the notice I received. Nothing was specified; nothing was precise. If the hon. Gentleman had given me notice of precise points I should have been better able to give him a reply which was both accurate and precise. I do not consider it was the kind of notice which I have normally received from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend mean that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has not given notice of what he was going to raise tonight? If that is so it is scandalous and monstrous.

Mr. Marples: I have read out the notice which I was given, which was merely that the hon. Member would be raising the matter of the correspondence concerning the Eastminster Estate. There was nothing precise, nothing on which I could give a reasoned reply.
I am glad we were able to give the hon. Gentleman the advantage of seeing the correspondence in this case, and I am grateful to the solicitors and surveyors concerned for enabling the hon. Gentleman to go through their files. He has had the advantage of seeing all the correspondence, though I did not have the advantage of knowing the precise points he proposed to raise.
The question here is simple. I am going to speak bluntly. Were the Dagenham Council guilty of double dealing or not? I said in the previous debate that they were, and I repeat now that in my opinion they were. The matter opens at the end of 1952 and I will try to summarise it. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that we cannot pry into the hearts of men, but their actions are open for observation. Never mind about the earlier minute, let us look at the correspondence, which was later, and which is on the record. The landowner's agent sent this letter to the Dagenham Council, saying that
Mr. England "—
that is, the owner of the land—
would raise no objection to the proposed acquisition by your Council of the area of about 94 acres for the purpose of controlled tipping and subsequent provision of public open space, provided "—
these were the words—
that the Council would support his application for the completion of the development

of Valentine's Way and Reindeer Chase in accordance with the plans approved by your Council.
So they proposed a deal of two distinct parts. The first part was that the owner would not object to the acquiring of 94 acres at Eastbrook End and the second part was the proviso that the Council supported Mr. England's plan to develop Valentine's Way. That was the offer of the private firm which the Council accepted. On 1st January they wrote:
I have been asked to point out to you that the Council are always prepared to support an application for the use of land for housing purposes, and I might add that in this particular case they had themselves been pressing for the release of this land for some years. I trust that your client will accept this assurance as sufficient for his purpose.
What was his purpose? It was to develop the land himself. It is clear all along that Mr. England wanted to develop the land himself. That was the purpose of his application and any other explanation of it would be ludicrous. The Council cannot claim it did not know that Mr. England was proceeding on the basis of being completely free to go ahead. Mr. England entered into negotiations with Parrish, the builder, and granted him permission to enter on the land for site preparation.
Parrish's agents applied to the Council in January, 1953, for permission to develop the site; and on 17th July, 1953, Kemsleys the agents, and Parrish the builders, were invited by the Council to come to a discussion which, the Council now say, was "purely on the merits of the planning application": but what they did say at the time was that the Council was
of the opinion that your application should be granted.
"Your application"; I ask hon. Members to note that. They led the private builder up the garden path. The Council should have said to Parrish, "If the planning application fails, we both lose, and if it succeeds, you will still lose, because we shall then put in a compulsory purchase order."
But there was no hint given to the builder about a compulsory purchase order, and, on 9th November, Parrish wrote to the Council suggesting a discussion on layout. That letter was acknowleged, and on 17th November they got a letter from the Clerk to the Council


which I have called the most cynical that I have ever come across in my 2½ years as a Parliamentary Secretary. This stated that the Council would try to buy the land compulsorily in order to put council houses on it. A week later, the Clerk—and I think that this really is sheer effrontery, wrote
As you know, my Council have always had in mind the development of the site for their own housing purposes …
It is both monstrous and ludicrous—

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Most dishonest.

Mr. Marples: —to suggest they ever had it in mind. Neither the owners nor the builders knew anything of the kind. Parrish had been led up the garden path, and the Council, in my view—or at least certain members of it, and the Clerk—must have known it, for the writer of the letter felt it necessary to state:
When it was decided to support your application for the use of this site for housing purposes it was in accordance with my Council's agreed policy that the land should be used for the erection of dwelling houses.
The person who wrote that was the Town Clerk. They supported the application of the builder becuse they expected the builder to build at that time, and then they changed their minds.
Local Government in this country has an enviable reputation for honesty and

straight dealing, and I hope and pray that that will always be so. It is a refutation built up by men anxious to strive in the service of the public, and conscious of the fact that to do so is a high honour and a signal mark of public duty. There must be few who are not parties to this matter who will not think that episodes of this kind are not worthy of the high traditions of the British public service; and I say that I think it would be better if the hon. Member for Dagenham let this matter lie from now onwards.
Local authorities have immense powers with their compulsory purchase orders, and such powers should be, and I am very happy to say, except for an instance such as this, always are, used in a wise, discriminating, and fair manner.

Mr. Bing: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has performed a great service in raising this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary says he thinks that a most cynical thing has happened, but let me tell him that the most cynical thing—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.